>But I think there's a precedent for the late-life listmaking in
>Orwell's fear of revolution in the quoted passage: better the masses
>should gamble than kick up a fuss, because the repression would just
>make things worse. Now obviously an armed revolution against a modern
>state like Britain's would be a pretty difficult and bloody affair,
>but Orwell's setting up a pretty limited set of options here, all of
>which suck - despair, gambling, or suicidal revolution. I'm no
>optimist, but that's too gloomy even for me.
Yeah, no kidding. Talk about your false trinaries! To be fair, though, that passage lacks context. Later on in the book he tries to set forth a fourth option. Socialism is the only cure for what ails the world, but most people are alienated from it. The solution? That old why-can't-we-all-just-get-along saw: "We are at a moment [1936] when it is desperately necessary for left-wingers of all complexions to drop their differences and hang together." Ho-hum. Which doesn't mean it's necessary to have all the answers, but if those are the best you can come up with, why bother?
It's all disapointing following his excellent descriptions of the poor's living conditions, his explication of class differences, and his detailing of the shortcomings of scientistic, order-worshiping socialists. Orwell was a complicated guy. The year after this was written he went to Spain and what he concluded from that was just the opposite: he welcomed the insurrection, he supported, even fought for, the Spanish revolution without fear of the possible retribution from the rulers, he supported radical change instead of be-happy-with-your-lot mush. It's also where he (rightly) acquired his dislike of communists, which perhaps sealed his future as a squealer.
Eric