[MD] Speaking of intellectuals

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Not inconvenient at all. Obvious Orwell's "understanding" of socialism and 
mine differ. What Orwell failed to see was that socialism inevitably leads 
to tyranny, as explained by F. A. Hayek in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."

[Arlo]
One could just as easily say that it was Hayek who failed to see that 
"socialism" does not invariably lead to tyranny, as Orwell knew quite well.

As for your "understanding" differing, this was likely due to the fact that 
Orwell did not succumb to the illusionary dichotomy used to support Party 
Ideology in America. For example, again from Wikipedia.

"Although he was never either a Trotskyist or an anarchist, he was strongly 
influenced by the Trotskyist and anarchist critiques of the Soviet regime 
and by the anarchists' emphasis on individual freedom. Many of his closest 
friends in the mid-1940s were part of the small anarchist scene in London."

That one could hold value in Trotskyism, democratic socialism and anarchism 
is a worldview that escapes those who seek to force the entirety of 
political thought into one absolute division.  That he was able to be 
critical of Stalinism, while advocating democratic socialism, and 
emphasizing individual freedom is something that is forcibly excluded from 
the dialogue of fear, distraction and distortion advanced by the Party 
Jesters.

Perhaps Orwell should be a hero for us all, for evidencing that there are 
more choices in the world than "My Party" and "Pure Evil". And for giving 
us a term, "Newspeak", with which to combat the propagandic maneuverings of 
the BOTH major political parties in our country.

Arlo