Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
How Did George Orwell Know?
How Did George Orwell Know?
Mar 17, 2025 10:44 AM

For those trapped behind the Iron Curtain, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four seemed more a documentary than a work of dystopian fiction. How did a man who had never traveled munist Russia get so much so right?

Read More…

The collocation in the title captures the thoroughgoing exploration of the topic in a phrase: George Orwell and Russia. Masha Karp is not the first to ponder George Orwell’s relationship to Stalinist Russia—and the relationship of both Stalinist and munist Russia to Orwell—but she is the first to frame prehensive, well-researched study around them. Even more important, she is the first Russian-born author to address these matters in a book-length work of scholarship that draws judiciously on Russian sources as well as on the wealth of English-language criticism now available.

These facts alone make George Orwell and Russia a notable study worthy of attention. Readers who suspect that nothing new can be said about Orwell, the most cited literary figure of the 20th century—the author of endlessly quoted catchwords and coinages ranging from Big Brother, thoughtcrime, and Newspeak to doublethink, memory hole, and Room 101—will be pleasantly surprised that George Orwell and Russia is studded with observations both fresh and arresting.

Above all, George Orwell and Russia addresses a question asked incessantly by readers in munist world as well as by his English-language audience: How did he know? How did this Englishman who didn’t speak or read Russian so prehend the lived reality of average Russians under Stalinism? How did he understand so well the nature of Stalinist tyranny and the quotidian experience of coping with the betrayals of the Russian Revolution?

These are precisely the questions that gripped Masha Karp herself when, as a young woman in her early 20s living in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), she first read Orwell in the late 1970s. Like so many other Russians before and since, she was astounded that a writer who had never set foot in munist country could capture how it felt to live munism. She follows a long line of heterodox Eastern European and Soviet citizens, ranging from Czesław Miłosz to Joseph Brodsky, who dared to readNineteen Eighty-Four during the Cold War era. They always felt it was a “miracle” that George Orwell so fully grasped the nature of the totalitarian tyranny of Stalin’s Russia, a country he had never stepped foot in.

Equally miraculous, as Karp acknowledges, was that Orwell’s nightmarish vision continued to be eerily apposite to the USSR of later decades—just as it is to Russia today. Not the least of her achievements in this book is her cogent explanation of his mirabilia of imaginative insight as she charts how Orwell’s hard-won experience of collectivism’s corruptions fortified and deepened his political vision, enabling him to conjure a terrifying world whose numerous catchphrases soon became bywords in the cultural lexicon. Her valuable study should be read by all who care about the Soviet past, agonize about the Russian present, and worry about the world’s future.

Spain: The Watershed Experience

Roughly a dozen years after her initial encounter with Orwell’s work, in 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, Masha Karp relocated to London, where she established herself as a respected presence on the British intellectual scene regarding all matters pertaining to Russia in addition to being an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin. Formerly the Russian Features editor at the BBC, she has served as a translator and an interpreter as well as the editor of the official journal of the George Orwell Society, based in London. She is also the author of the first Russian-language biography of Orwell, published in 2018.

In George Orwell and Russia, Karp first investigates and analyzes the development of Orwell’s emerging political consciousness—that is, his growing interest in socialism and his heightening awareness of munism really was. She argues that Orwell’s “political education” began when he spent time in Paris in 1928–29 with his aunt Nellie Limouzin and her husband, Eugene Lanti, both of whom were long-time radical leaders of the Esperanto movement who went through a Stalinist phase but later became disillusioned with Stalinism.

Karp argues at length that Nellie and Lanti exerted decisive influence on young Eric Blair in his 20s—and specifically on the character of his political development as a socialist. Lanti, who had visited the USSR and initially admired the Soviet experiment, was munist and international co-founder of the Esperanto movement, an attempt at creating and disseminating an international language; Nellie munism in the mid-1920s after they became lovers at this time.

Does Karp overestimate the influence of the Esperanto movement in general and Nellie and Lanti in particular? Much of the case is advanced with phrases such as “he must have,” “undoubtedly he knew,” “probably he thought,” and so on. Here Karp risks pushing too hard given the evidence presented here, on the contention that Blair’s relationship to his aunt and to the Esperanto movement shaped his political formation. The wealth of information about Lanti is interesting, but this provocative claim would be more persuasive to the skeptical reader if it were advanced more tentatively. The case does warrant further investigation, and Karp justifiably links his interest in languages (he was a gifted linguist, fluent in Burmese) with his sharp attention to the connection between language and thought (and the subtle political implications, which his famous essay “Politics and the English Language” addresses), all of which gave him a distinct approach to socialism munism. His emerging political interests were furthered by his link to the circle of pacifists and anarchists associated with the London journals Adelphi and the New English Weekly in the early 1930s.

Karp notes, justly, that Orwell’s early sketches and fiction, including the semiautobiographical Down and Out in Parisand London and three traditional novels (Burmese Days, 1934; A Clergyman’s Daughter, 1935; and Keep the Aspidistra Flying, 1936), do not reflect a distinctive political outlook. (By contrast, she esteems highly Orwell’s last novel of the 1930s, Coming Up for Air, his portrait of England on the eve of World War II, with its atmosphere of foreboding about ing war.)

Karp argues that Orwell’s visceral understanding of the collectivist, authoritarian nature of state socialism and the beginning of his recognition that it was something unique—that munism as a form of totalitarianism—dates from 1936–37, when he visited northern England to study the condition of the working class, the e of which was The Road to Wigan Pier. Not everyone agrees. For instance, Orwell’s first biographer, Bernard Crick, in George Orwell: A Life (1980), judged that Orwell portrayed himself too much the political neophyte, arguing that his grasp of Marxism and the ideology of the British left was greater than Orwell allowed when he visited Wigan. Karp is on surer ground with her more recent research.

There is no doubt that the turning point in Orwell’s political education came during his time fighting in the Spanish Civil War in the early months of 1937. pleted both mitment to what he described as “democratic Socialism as I understand it” (Orwell always capitalized the noun in the phrase) and his realization that the fundamental nature munism was totalitarian. In Spain he saw how munist forces betrayed the revolution and was outraged at what he called “the servility of the so-called intellectuals” in their dishonesty munism.

Karp notes an important impact of the Spanish experience on Orwell. There he first became aware of how the very idea of objective truth could be subverted when he saw stories of events taking place that he knew were not true but produced for political purposes. The theme would surface as a major element of Nineteen Eighty- Four.

Karp is most impressed by what she calls Orwell’s “remarkable intuition,” which enabled him to see what his fellow leftists were blind to—that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime little different from Nazism. He also grasped, as few of his rades did, munism was not a revolutionary idea but a counterrevolutionary force, something she notes it took years for some of his fellow leftists to learn. Some never did.

Perhaps the most impressive and significant scholarly contribution in this study is Karp’s discovery in Moscow, in a regional headquarters of the Soviet police, of a propaganda report pertaining to Orwell’s activities in Spain, accusing him of “subversive work.” (Orwell had fought with a Trotskyist militia that was branded traitorous by the Soviets, and he later suffered a throat wound while serving on the Aragon front. His papers were seized in a search by Spanish police and turned over to munist authorities.)

Orwell’s Later “Political Education”

Karp highlights the role that certain figures played in reinforcing the lessons of Spain and shaping Orwell’s “political education” about the tyrannical tendencies of munism, particularly Franz Borkenau, Gleb Struve, and Arthur Koestler. They taught him the subtleties munist doctrine and practice and sharpened his political acumen. Koestler’s Darkness at Noon also played a role in forming some of the concepts that would appear in Nineteen Eighty-Four, especially the way that the protagonist es to accept his thoughtcrime, confessing so as not to betray the Party. Struve brought Zamyatin’s We to Orwell’s attention, which helped shape Orwell’s conception of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Karp believes it was Borkenau who influenced his thinking the most. Orwell had favorably reviewed his condemnation munism’s role in the Spanish Civil War, The Spanish Cockpit, which educated him about the nuances munist doctrine and the interworkings of munist system in Russia.

Orwell’s experience of Russian behavior in World War II and in particular what he called the disgusting cult of Stalin by many of his fellow leftists truly laid the groundwork for his two masterpieces, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Animal Farm’s perfect parody of the betrayal of the Russian Revolution marked what Orwell referred to, in “Why I Write” (1946), as his aspiration “to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.” Karp is impressed with Orwell’s generous willingness to allow Animal Farm to be translated for those behind the Iron Curtain without demanding any fees. She also observes that Orwell’s translators assumed he could read and understand Russian. How else could he portray so ingeniously and subtly how the Russian Revolution was betrayed?

In her discussion of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Karp contrasts the responses of readers in the West with that of Soviet citizens. Westerners saw the novel as portrait of a dystopian future and a warning of what the democratic governments of the world faced. Russian citizens didn’t so much view the book as a work of artistic imagination—indeed as a work of fiction—but rather as an artwork that reflected their reality. It was not a portrait of a future society of the 1980s. It was a portrait of their present. For them, Nineteen Eighty-Four had already arrived.

Karp aims to remind readers of how important the Russian experience was for Orwell. mentators on his two classic indictments of totalitarianism focused on his obsession with the growing menace munism. She wants to put the focus on his interactions munism in a specific context and a specific place, Russia, and let the readers understand the centrality of that land to Orwell’s thinking. She also draws attention to the ongoing relevance of his work to Russian politics and society, showing how the policies and (cult of) personality associated with Vladimir Putin necessitate renewed calls to heed Orwell’s warnings about leader worship and the abuses of power.

Readers with an interest in scholarly matters related to the study of Orwell’s work and life will also be gratified that Masha Karp is scrupulous about tracing sources and meticulous in citing them. With so many debates swirling about George Orwell’s legacy—indeed the controversies about his heritage represent a minor political issue in their own right—George Orwell and Russia is certainly e in that it allows readers to follow Karp’s lines of argument and assess the quality of her evidence. Clearly written and straightforwardly presented, George Orwell and Russia will thus appeal not only to the general reader but also to scholars interested in expert treatment of this significant dimension of the work and reception of George Orwell, arguably the most important literary figure of modern times.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Adam Smith and the morality of commercial society
Over at Arc Digital today I take a look at Adam Smith’s moral teachings, particularly in light mercial society and Christian theology. This essay serves as a brief introduction to one of the Moral Markets projects I am working on, as well as a teaser for further exploration of the relationship between Christianity and classical political economy. As A.M.C. Waterman describes the developments following the publication of Smith’s Wealth of Nations (WN), “Whether Smith actually intended WN to be read...
‘If anyone was ever a socialist it was Jesus’: Democratic Socialists of America leader
Last week, Kelley Rose told the national media why she helped found a chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America: Jesus made her do it. Fittingly, she told her story at taxpayer expense. ments came as part of a glowing profile of the DSA that National Public Radio posted on July 26 mistitled, “What You Need to Know About the Democratic Socialists of America.” Rose, a 36-year-oldwho co-founded the DSA’s North Central West Virginia chapter, told NPR: “I might be...
When it comes to plastic straw bans, won’t somebody please think of the children?
Twenty years ago on The Simpsons, Helen Lovejoy gave us one of the most ubiquitous rallying cries in politics: Homer: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this town is infested by bears. Lovejoy: Think of the children! [The mayor sets up a Bear Patrol, which costs tax money. One week later, the citizens have a plaint.] Homer: Down with taxes! Down with taxes! Lovejoy: Won’t somebody please think of the children? The attempt to gain support...
FAQ: The U.S.-EU plan to reduce tariffs
On Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced a new transatlantic plan to “make our planet a better, more secure, and more prosperous place” by lowering tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations between the U.S. and the EU. Here’s what you need to know. What did the two leaders announce? The U.S. and EU signed a joint statement of intention to pursue four goals: “First of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers,...
The folly of ‘following your passion’
If you’re a young person in America, you’ve undoubtedly been bombarded by calls to“follow your passion,” “pursue your dreams,” or “do what you love and love what you do.” But do these sugary mantras truly represent the path to vocational clarity, economic abundance, personal fulfillment, and human flourishing? Not according to a new study by researchers from Stanford University and Yale-NUS College, which found that “following your passion” is likely to lead to overly limited pursuits, inflated expectations (career, economic,...
Justin Welby reimagines a poorer and less free Britain
“Christian leaders are often guilty of ‘souping up, mon good,” says Noah Gould in this week’s Acton Commentary. “Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, is no exception. In his latest book, Reimagining Britain: Foundations for Hope, Welby sets out to create a new social and political vision for the United Kingdom based on mon good.” The most precise definition Welby offers is that mon good “looks not to averages but to the totality of flourishing in a group.” He uses the...
C.S. Lewis on why we have cause to be uneasy
If, like me, you spend a lot of time online—especially on social media—or watching the news you probably have a constant, low-level sense of anxiety. Always focusing on the problems in the world can cause us to feel a perpetual sense of unease. But while we may try to blame this feeling on the state of the world, deep down we know there must be something more to it. We have a sense that something is truly wrong, as if...
Peter Heslam on wealth creation among the global poor
Throughout our debates about global poverty and economic inequality, critics of capitalism routinely raise the point that half of the world’s population live on less than $2 per day, while wealth among the other half continues to “concentrate.” The underlying assumption is clear: For so many to be making so little, someone (somewhere) must surely be takingmuch. Yet given that such a statistic actually represents a high-water mark in human historyfor all people — rich and poor alike — we’d...
Foreign aid fraud concerns ‘valid,’ says UK chief
The man who oversees the UK’s foreign aid budget says that public concerns about fraud, abuse, and futility associated with international development programs are “valid.” And he plans to fight those perceptions by launching an evangelistic campaign on behalf of the government. Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary for the Department for International Development (DfID), told a civil service website that foreign aid skeptics raise two chief objections: Either they believe that “the problems are too big” to fix or that “the...
We are all New Deal socialists now
President Trump is known for public unveiling his inner thoughts on Twitter. But one of the most ments he’s ever made came recently in a private discussion with lawmakers about trade policy. According to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., when senators visited the White Housethey told the president what farmers want is access to markets, not a payment from government. To this Trump replied, “I’m surprised, I’ve never heard of anybody who didn’t want a payment from government.” Unfortunately, the president...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved