1. Introduction: The Problem of “Orwell”

Few twentieth-century writers have been as extensively appropriated, repurposed, and wielded as ideological tools as George Orwell. Today, his name is less linked to a particular historical figure and more as a symbolic term within the political lexicon of the capitalist West: “Orwellian” surveillance, propaganda, and authoritarianism. This term functions as a universal shorthand for political evil, used effortlessly by liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and even security agencies. This broad usage is no accident but the result of a long, deliberate process of cultural shaping that has transformed Orwell from a nuanced democratic socialist into a Cold War icon of anti-communism and a moral voice against “totalitarianism” in all its forms.

John Rodden’s *Becoming George Orwell: Life and Letters, Legend and Legacy* offers a nuanced look at Orwell’s changing reputation. His key point—that there are “two Orwells,” the historical figure and the posthumous icon—is convincing and well-supported. Rodden tracks Orwell’s reputation from the Book-of-the-Month Club’s promotion of *Animal Farm* to the CIA’s influence in the film adaptation, showing how cultural bodies shape political meanings. Despite thorough archival work, Rodden’s perspective remains politically limited. By focusing mainly on how audiences received Orwell’s work, he subtly endorses the liberal view that Orwell’s politics were always consistent, and that the Cold War distorted them. This assumption is weak analytically and overlooks important questions a Marxist approach would raise.

This question is simple: why did the ruling class easily embrace Orwell? Why did Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four become key texts in Western anti-communism? Why has Orwell’s name been turned into a tool within the ideological weapons of the very system he aimed to oppose? These questions extend beyond cultural history alone. They require a political analysis of Orwell’s personal beliefs, contradictions, and limitations.

Fred Mazelis and the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) provide an important correction here. Mazelis’s critique of Orwell’s anti-Stalinism—particularly in “George Orwell and the British Foreign Office”—challenges the liberal myth about Orwell that has persisted since the 1950s. For Mazelis, Orwell’s political evolution is more about unresolved contradictions than heroic dissent. Although Orwell’s opposition to Stalinism was genuine and courageous, it was not based on a revolutionary Marxist worldview. His political associations—the ILP in Britain and the POUM in Spain—aligned him with centrist groups that rejected Trotsky’s analysis of Stalinism and, in effect, supported the Popular Front. As Mazelis notes, Orwell’s connection to the working class was “more based on emotion and sentiment than on scientific conviction.” Thus, he was opposed to Stalinism but did not fully support the revolutionary alternative of the Fourth International.

This article argues that Orwell’s work is susceptible to right-wing co-optation not due to misinterpretation, but because of the inherent ambiguities in his political position. The Cold War did not distort Orwell’s ideas; rather, it selectively highlighted certain aspects of his writings. The ruling elite did not need to distort Orwell’s anti-Stalinist views; they just had to disconnect them from his broader socialist beliefs, which Orwell himself could never fully articulate. Consequently, Orwell’s ideological legacy is closely linked to the political boundaries within which he operated.

The argument is supported by comparing three historiographical traditions: Rodden’s cultural-historical approach, which examines how “Orwell” became a symbolic figure; the mainstream liberal and social-democratic perspective, seeing Orwell as a moral witness and democratic socialist; and the Marxist analysis by Mazelis and the WSWS, which situates Orwell’s anti-Stalinism within the wider context of the international socialist movement’s political crisis.

These traditions are more than just different interpretations; they are rooted in conflicting ideological theories. Rodden views ideology as its reception, the mainstream perceives it as a moral stance, and Mazelis regards it as a political position. Only the political line can explain Orwell’s internal political contradictions and the way his work has been used externally.

The significance of this analysis extends beyond Orwell himself. The discussion of Orwell’s legacy primarily centres on interpretations of socialism, anti-Stalinism, and the history of revolutionary Marxism. Clarifying Orwell’s role against liberal mythmaking doesn’t imply portraying him as a revolutionary—since he was not— but rather involves situating his work within the political chaos that shaped his experiences and outcomes. Orwell’s tragedy isn’t being misunderstood but being politically stuck: caught between a Stalinism he truly hated and a revolutionary path he couldn’t pursue. This article aims to highlight an alternative focus in Orwell studies. Only through this can we fully grasp Orwell’s work, legacy, and the political uses to which they have been subjected.

2. Rodden’s “Two Orwell’s”: Reputation, Myth, and Cultural Construction

John Rodden’s *Becoming George Orwell* offers the most thorough exploration of Orwell’s evolution from a specific historical figure to a lasting cultural icon. His central idea—the distinction between Orwell the person and “Orwell” the myth—is more than just stylistic; it’s a methodological stance. This approach allows him to examine Orwell through the lens of the sociology of reputation, highlighting that his importance is shaped not only by his political beliefs but also by the institutional and ideological forces that have invoked his name since he died in 1950. Consequently, Rodden’s work resonates with reception studies inspired by Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, and the Birmingham School, albeit without their Marxist perspective. For Rodden, “Orwell” functions as a cultural artefact, a symbolic resource, and a site of ideological contest.

Rodden’s key empirical insights include a detailed examination of how Animal Farm integrated into American culture. He discusses its promotion by the Book-of-the-Month Club, how anti-communist liberals embraced it, and the CIA’s covert funding of its 1954 animated adaptation. Additionally, he shows that Nineteen Eighty-Four was seen not just as a socialist warning about bureaucracy but as a universal symbol of “totalitarianism,” a concept that during the Cold War blurred the distinctions between Stalinism and fascism. Rodden’s analysis also highlights how Orwell’s essays were selectively included in anthologies, how his letters were curated, and how politicians from various ideologies used his image. Through his analysis, Orwell serves as a lens for understanding Cold War cultural politics.

Rodden’s framework, while sophisticated, suffers from a key theoretical flaw: it views appropriation as happening after the author’s death, overlooking its reliance on the original work’s political context. His “two Orwells” model posits a distinct separation between the historical Orwell and the symbolic “Orwell,” allowing him to set aside Orwell’s anti-Stalinist stance to concentrate on later interpretations. This methodological choice has significant consequences. It causes Rodden to perceive Cold War-era uses of Orwell as distortions, misinterpretations, or cultural recontextualizations, rather than as expressions of contradictions already present in Orwell’s own political beliefs.

Rodden intentionally avoids scrutinising Orwell’s political views on the grounds of the liberal belief that Orwell’s anti-Stalinism and his concept of “democratic socialism” are fundamentally valid. This view holds that the Cold War highlighted certain aspects of Orwell’s work while hiding others. Such an approach allows Rodden to maintain a neutral stance, positioning himself as a credible historian rather than an ideological critic. However, this also prevents him from addressing a key question: why was Orwell’s work so easily co-opted by groups he opposed? While Rodden can explain how this appropriation occurs, he struggles to justify why it remains politically feasible.

Rodden’s analysis of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four highlights this limitation. He thoroughly documents their Cold War usage but doesn’t investigate why these works, rather than titles like The Road to Wigan Pier or Homage to Catalonia, became Orwell’s main texts. Although he mentions the CIA’s role in the Animal Farm film, he doesn’t explore the political reasons that made the text suitable for such intervention. He claims that American audiences primarily knew Orwell through his anti-totalitarian works, but overlooks how Orwell’s political ambiguities influenced this perception.

Rodden’s lack of mention of Trotsky is especially revealing. In a study examining Orwell’s ideological perspectives, Trotsky—the prominent opponent of Stalinism—is not just absent but fundamentally omitted. He is only referenced as a name Orwell or his contemporaries mention, never as a political alternative that could shed light on Orwell’s own boundaries. This omission is common in mainstream Orwell scholarship but significantly weakens Rodden’s analysis, which seeks to explore Orwell’s ideological applications. By ignoring Trotsky and the revolutionary tradition Stalinism aimed to erase, it becomes impossible to fully grasp Orwell’s stance or properly analyze his ideological position.

Rodden’s “two Orwells” model shifts focus twice: it attributes the political contradictions in Orwell’s writings to the cultural forces that shaped his posthumous fame, while also marginalising Trotsky and the Fourth International’s revolutionary alternative. This creates a thorough history of Orwell’s reputation but offers limited political analysis. Although Rodden discusses how Orwell became a Cold War icon, he does not explore why Orwell’s work was so easily transformed in this way.

3. The Mainstream Liberal and Social‑Democratic Orwell

While Rodden’s work provides the most detailed effort to contextualise Orwell’s posthumous reputation historically, the mainstream liberal and social-democratic traditions most frequently aim to maintain its stability. From Bernard Crick’s “George Orwell: A Life” (1980) to D. J. Taylor’s “Orwell: The Life” (2003), and from Michael Shelden’s more narrative biography to Christopher Hitchens’ provocative “Why Orwell Matters,” the dominant scholarly and journalistic consensus largely remains unchanged: Orwell is regarded as a principled democratic socialist, a moral critic opposing totalitarianism, and a writer whose political integrity exceeds the ideological conflicts of his time. This consensus persists strongly, not because it is strictly historically accurate, but because it plays a specific ideological role within the political culture of the capitalist West.

The common view considers Orwell as a figure of moral clarity amidst the chaos of ideology. His socialism is seen not as a fixed Marxist theory but as an ethical position based on a rejection of injustice, compassion for the oppressed, and a dedication to fairness and decency. This form of ethical socialism stands in contrast to Stalinism’s bureaucratic nightmare, which is regarded as an inevitable result of rigid ideology and revolutionary zeal. In this view, Orwell serves as the conscience of the Left, highlighting the risks of ideological extremism and advocating for moderation, diversity, and parliamentary democracy.

This interpretation offers political benefits, allowing liberal scholars to view Orwell as aligned with their values while distancing him from the revolutionary roots that shaped early-twentieth-century socialism. Likewise, social democrats can present Orwell as a precursor to their reformist ideas, often ignoring his profound disillusionment with the Labour Party and his recognition of the limitations of parliamentary socialism. Furthermore, the broader ideological apparatus of the capitalist state can leverage Orwell as a tool to oppose any radical critique, whether Marxist, anarchist, or anti-imperialist.

This analysis centres on selective emphasis. Mainstream scholars often focus on Orwell’s critique of Stalinism, frequently ignoring his criticisms of British imperialism, class society, and capitalist exploitation. They celebrate *Animal Farm* and *Nineteen Eighty-Four* as universal warnings against totalitarianism but tend to minimise *The Road to Wigan Pier* and *Homage to Catalonia*, which expose capitalism’s brutality and the Popular Front’s betrayals. Moreover, they highlight Orwell’s essays on language and politics while overlooking his more radical views on revolutionary change.

This focus excludes Trotsky and the Fourth International. Crick’s biography portrays Trotsky as a distant figure, briefly mentioning him without emphasising his role as a political thinker whose ideas could illuminate Orwell’s perspectives. Taylor’s biography is even more evasive, presenting Trotskyism as a marginal sect rather than a significant revolutionary alternative to Stalinism. Hitchens, despite his rhetorical skill, reduces Trotsky to an emblem of ideological excess, linking him to Orwell only as victims of Stalinist repression. Consequently, the revolutionary Marxist critique of Stalinism becomes obscured, and Orwell’s anti-Stalinism is detached from the political tradition that could have given it coherence.

This omission is intentional, not accidental. It emphasises a core idea: viewing Trotsky as a viable political choice requires us to see Stalinism not as an unavoidable outcome of Marxism but as a particular historical decline. This means recognising that the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy are not inherently socialist but are committed by a counter-revolutionary elite that seized the gains of 1917. Furthermore, it shows that Orwell’s anti-Stalin position, though morally compelling, lacked the analytical depth and political strategy that Trotsky provided.

The dominant tradition avoids admitting this because it would diminish Orwell’s influence in liberal political culture. Orwell is appreciated because he appears to critique totalitarianism without undermining the legitimacy of capitalist democracy. He can be invoked by both the Left and the Right, embodying a brand of socialism that fits within the existing system — one motivated by sentiment and ethics instead of revolutionary strategy.

Mainstream scholars stick to calling Orwell a “democratic socialist’ because the term is broad enough to encompass his ethical views while excluding revolutionary Marxism that might challenge liberal democracy. This perspective allows Orwell to be regarded as a critic of injustice without supporting any movement that aims to overthrow the existing system. Consequently, Orwell is viewed as a ‘safe socialist’—a figure respected but not necessarily endorsed.

A closer look reveals complexity in Orwell’s views. His political writings reveal deep ambivalence and unresolved contradictions, highlighting the tension between his disdain for oppression and his difficulty articulating a clear revolutionary alternative. His socialism was sincere but lacked a comprehensive theoretical framework. His anti-Stalinist stance was courageous but lacked a solid political foundation. While his critique of totalitarianism was influential, it was not sufficiently dialectical. Calling Orwell a coherent democratic socialist wrongly implies a unified perspective that his thoughts do not actually exhibit.

A Marxist historiography should therefore reject the typical portrayal of Orwell as merely a moral witness and democratic socialist. This depiction aligns more with the ideological goals of the capitalist state than with Orwell’s actual political development. Furthermore, it is important to restore the revolutionary alternative as a central aspect of the narrative—a choice Orwell rejected and that mainstream scholars often ignore.

4. Mazelis and the WSWS: Anti‑Stalinism, Centrism, and the Revolutionary Alternative

Rodden’s work provides the most sophisticated cultural analysis of Orwell’s reputation, and the predominant liberal perspective offers a simplified, sanitised view of Orwell’s politics. Fred Mazelis and the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) offer the only approach capable of uncovering the political reasoning behind Orwell’s posthumous interpretation. While Rodden focuses on reception and mainstream narratives highlight moral character, Mazelis centres on political line—the essential element in any Marxist assessment of an intellectual’s historical importance.

Mazelis contends that Orwell’s anti-Stalinism, though courageous and sincere, lacked a basis in revolutionary Marxist ideology. Consequently, it was inherently susceptible to manipulation by the bourgeois state. This insight is a political analysis rather than a moral judgment. For Mazelis, Orwell’s ideological position consistently leans toward centrism—a hesitation to support either the Stalinist regime or revolutionary Marxists such as Trotsky and the Fourth International. It is this centrist tendency, rather than any later misinterpretation, that accounts for Orwell’s work being so effectively exploited during the Cold War.

Mazelis’ analysis begins by examining Orwell’s political affiliations. In Britain, Orwell associated with the Independent Labour Party (ILP), a centrist group opposing both the reformist Labour Party and the Stalinist policies of the Communist Party, though it lacked a clear revolutionary agenda. In Spain, Orwell was involved with the POUM, which opposed Stalinism, supported the Popular Front, and rejected Trotsky’s criticism of the Soviet bureaucracy. These political connections were intentional, reflecting Orwell’s personality: principled, contrarian, and strongly supportive of the working class, but cautious of extreme theories and opposed to what he saw as ideological “sectarianism.”

Mazelis’ critique is incisive, arguing that Orwell’s ties to the working class were “more rooted in emotion and sentiment than in scientific conviction.” This doesn’t call into question Orwell’s sincerity but highlights the limits of a politics driven by moral intuition rather than revolutionary theory. While Orwell’s intense opposition to oppression was evident, his lack of a Marxist understanding of the state, class struggle, and bureaucratic decline meant his anti-Stalinism lacked political depth. He recognised the Soviet bureaucracy’s abuses but couldn’t explain their roots, condemned totalitarianism but failed to propose a revolutionary alternative.

This political flaw had real consequences. Orwell’s failure to recognise the Fourth International as the compassionate third camp, positioned between Stalinism and capitalism, confined him to the ideological framework of the Popular Front. Although he opposed Stalinism, he believed bourgeois democracy was the only viable alternative. Consequently, he later provided the British Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD), an openly anti-communist propaganda agency, with a list of individuals suspected of Stalinist sympathies. Orwell’s collaboration with the IRD was a logical outcome of his political stance—which rejected revolutionary Marxism in favour of a “lesser evil” alternative to Stalinism—rather than a sign of personal weakness or confusion.

Mazelis’ critique of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four is based on the same logic. He argues that while these works strongly denounce bureaucratic tyranny, they lack the specific programmatic focus needed to condemn capitalist exploitation as well. Their critique of totalitarian regimes remains broad and abstract, not anchored in particular historical contexts. As a result, they can be—and have been—exploited by the bourgeois state as tools against socialism. This misapplication isn’t due to Orwell’s intent, but to his political viewpoint creating the possibility.

Mazelis’s analysis emphasises the strong link between Orwell’s political contradictions and the larger crisis affecting the international socialist movement. For Mazelis, Orwell’s centrism reflects more than a personal preference; it signals a broader political confusion stemming from the Stalinist decline of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Comintern as a revolutionary organisation. Orwell’s lack of support for the Fourth International reveals the ideological pressures of his time but also shows the limits of a politics driven by ethical instinct rather than revolutionary theory.

Mazelis’ analysis is essential to any Marxist understanding of Orwell, as it reintroduces the revolutionary viewpoint Orwell dismissed and mainstream scholars often overlook. It clarifies both Orwell’s objections and what he overlooked. Moreover, it reveals the political logic behind the ideological exploitation of Orwell’s work: rather than misrepresenting him, the ruling class has manipulated the contradictions in his own politics.

Mazelis’ framework provides the basic theory for analysing Orwell’s influence. It emphasises that discussions of Orwell’s importance are closely tied to broader debates about the meaning of socialism. Furthermore, it paves the way for the next stage of analysis by recognising that Rodden, the mainstream tradition, and Mazelis all hold fundamentally different ideas about ideology.

5. Three Theories of Ideology: Why the Historiography Cannot Be Reconciled

The earlier sections showed that Rodden, the mainstream liberal tradition, and Mazelis/WSWS hold markedly different views on Orwell’s politics and legacy. Yet, their disagreement extends beyond mere interpretation or academic focus. The core difference lies in their fundamental understanding of ideology—what it is, how it operates, and how it shapes the relationship between a writer’s work and its historical backdrop. These divergent notions are incompatible, resulting in not only contrasting views of Orwell but also entirely different analytical objects. A Marxist historiography must recognize that the field is influenced by three conflicting theories of ideology: as reception, as moral stance, and as political line. Each theory leads to a different version of Orwell, with each fulfilling a unique ideological role in the present context.

A. Rodden: Ideology as Reception

Rodden’s theory is grounded in the idea that meaning is constructed after the text’s creation, during reception, circulation, and cultural recontextualization. According to this perspective, the author’s political beliefs are less significant than the ways their work is subsequently employed; ideology operates through institutions such as publishers, cultural bureaucracies, and media networks; and the crucial phase occurs after the author’s death, when “Orwell” becomes a symbolic resource.

This theory allows Rodden to analyse Orwell’s reputation in detail, but it also overlooks the political dimensions of Orwell’s anti-Stalinism. Since ideology primarily emerges from how Orwell is perceived, the internal contradictions in Orwell’s politics are considered less important. As a result, the Cold War perspective on Orwell is viewed more as a cultural phenomenon than a purely political one. Rodden’s Orwell is therefore a passive figure, seen as a writer whose work is shaped by external influences. While this perspective helps explain how reputation operates, it does not clarify why Orwell’s work was so easily reinterpreted from the outset.

B. The Mainstream Tradition: Ideology as Moral Stance

The mainstream liberal and social-democratic tradition perceives ideology differently—as connected to personal ethics, moral clarity, and political decency rather than as a structural force. In this view, Orwell’s socialism is regarded as an ethical position rather than a set of theoretical beliefs. Anti-Stalinism is seen as a moral victory rather than a particular political stance. Any inconsistencies in Orwell’s thoughts are interpreted as signs of integrity rather than political inconsistency.

This theory allows mainstream scholars to see Orwell as a moral witness, valued for his honesty and decency. It also distances Orwell’s anti-Stalinism from the revolutionary tradition, which might have given it more coherence. By presenting ideology as a moral stance, the mainstream view elevates Orwell to a figure beyond political conflicts—a writer whose insights are widely relevant and whose warnings are timeless. This highlights Orwell’s role in liberal political culture: as a safe socialist critic of injustice who does not threaten the capitalist system. However, this perspective systematically omits Trotsky and the Fourth International, whose presence would expose the political limits of Orwell’s anti-Stalinism and demonstrate that ethical socialism alone cannot prevent bureaucratic decline.

C. Mazelis/WSWS: Ideology as Political Line

Mazelis and the WSWS follow a traditional Marxist understanding of ideology, viewing it as a reflection of one’s political stance—specifically, their position within class struggle—rather than merely perceptions or morals. In this framework, anti-Stalinism holds significance only when based on a revolutionary program. The crucial issue is not Orwell’s personal sentiments but the political alternative he offered. Additionally, centrism is not just a moderate position; it is a structural attitude that naturally results in political capitulation.

This theory clarifies why Orwell’s anti-Stalinism, even if sincere, was politically constrained. It also illustrates how the bourgeois state could adopt Orwell’s ideas. Since Orwell rejected Trotsky’s revolutionary approach, he lacked a firm foundation to oppose Stalinism beyond endorsing the “lesser evil” of bourgeois democracy. Consequently, Orwell is not merely a misinterpretation or moral observer but a complex figure reflecting the crisis within the global socialist movement. Thus, Orwell’s ideological role is closely tied to his political limitations.

D. Why These Frameworks Cannot Be Reconciled

These three interpretations of Orwell present conflicting images: Rodden’s Orwell is a cultural figure shaped by posthumous memory. The mainstream view portrays Orwell as a moral exemplar with unwavering ethical beliefs. Mazelis’ depiction shows Orwell as a centrist navigating contradictions that seem fitting. These images are incompatible because their underlying ideologies clash. Rodden’s reception-based model does not account for Orwell’s anti-Stalinist political stance. The mainstream moral narrative fails to explain the contradictions in Orwell’s politics. Similarly, the Marxist view cannot accept the liberal notion of Orwell as a straightforward democratic socialist.

A Marxist historiography should avoid attempting to unify these diverse traditions. Instead, it must recognize that discussions about Orwell’s significance fundamentally revolve around the meaning of ideology—and, by extension, the fundamental concepts of socialism, anti-Stalinism, and revolutionary politics.

6. The Structural Ambiguity of Orwell’s Politics

To grasp why Orwell’s work remains ideologically adaptable—how the Cold War state could readily utilize it and why it continues to serve as a rhetorical device for both liberalism and conservatism—we must examine the fundamental structural ambiguity in Orwell’s politics. This ambiguity wasn’t caused by personal inconsistency or internal psychological conflict. Rather, it originated from a political position that rejected Stalinism but did not endorse the revolutionary alternative presented by Trotsky and the Fourth International.

The ambiguity originated from a form of socialism rooted more in ethical sentiments than in scientific analysis, coupled with anti-Stalinism that lacked a clear program. It also involved a critique of totalitarianism that was not dialectical enough to fully understand the link between bureaucratic control and capitalist exploitation. This ambiguity manifested in three interconnected areas: Orwell’s perspective on socialism, his critique of Stalinism, and his understanding of the capitalist state.

A. Socialism as Ethical Sentiment

Orwell’s socialism was authentic and emotionally driven, grounded in a genuine connection to the working class. However, it lacked in-depth theoretical foundation. It was not founded on Marxist analysis of class struggle, the state, or capitalist accumulation. Instead, it was motivated by a moral intuition: the belief that ordinary people deserve dignity, fairness, and a decent standard of living. This ethical view of socialism gave Orwell a deep sense of injustice, but it did not provide a concrete revolutionary strategy.

This explains why Orwell was able to write *The Road to Wigan Pier*, a compelling critique of working-class poverty and bourgeois hypocrisy, without endorsing a specific plan for socialist reform. It sheds light on his criticism of the Labour Party’s cautious stance while also remaining cautious of revolutionary groups. As a result, his political writings often oscillate between radical critique and pragmatic reform. Ethical socialism, although admirable, is inherently fragile. It lacks the theoretical frameworks to analyze the state as a tool for class domination, to grasp the necessity of revolution in history, or to understand how bureaucratic systems can deteriorate. Consequently, liberalism can easily adopt it, embracing its moral critique but dismissing its political implications.

B. Anti‑Stalinism Without Revolutionary Anchoring

Orwell’s opposition to Stalin was courageous and, in many respects, ahead of its era. His experience in Spain exposed the brutal reality of the Stalinist regime, and his writings on the Moscow Trials, purges, and the suppression of POUM serve as strong condemnations of Stalinist repression. Nonetheless, Orwell’s anti-Stalin position was not based on a solid political foundation. Although he viewed Stalinism as a betrayal of socialism, he did not employ the revolutionary Marxist analysis that explains this betrayal.

Orwell’s opposition to Trotskyism was based not on an in-depth critique of Trotsky’s perspectives on the Soviet bureaucracy but on a suspicion of what he perceived as ideological “sectarianism” and a rigid, doctrinal stance among Trotskyists. This suspicion prevented Orwell from recognizing that Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism went beyond mere doctrinal disputes; it was an in-depth analysis of how the bureaucracy caused the workers’ state to decline.

Orwell opposed Stalinism but didn’t fully understand its origins. Although he recognized signs of bureaucratic tyranny and shown how totalitarian control functioned, he failed to explain why the Soviet state had transformed. This lack of insight led Orwell to be influenced by the liberal perspective that Stalinism was an inevitable outcome of revolutionary aims—an interpretation endorsed by the Cold War authorities.

C. A Critique of Totalitarianism Without a Critique of Capitalism

Orwell’s political ambiguity is most evident in Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. These works critically examine bureaucratic control, surveillance, and ideological manipulation but remain open-ended politically. Their critique of totalitarianism is general and not linked to any particular historical period. While they illustrate how domination operates, they do not identify the specific class forces involved. They portray the horrors of bureaucratic regimes without distinguishing between the decline of a workers’ state and the authoritarian features of capitalist democracies.

This indeterminacy serves more than a literary purpose; it underscores the limits of Orwell’s political outlook. Lacking a Marxist critique of the capitalist state, Orwell did not recognize how thoroughly mechanisms like surveillance, propaganda, and ongoing war were woven into the fabric of liberal democracies of his time. As a result, Nineteen Eighty-Four was frequently seen as a warning primarily about Soviet totalitarianism, neglecting its implications for the United States and Britain.

The Cold War government didn’t distort Orwell’s work; rather, it exploited its ambiguity. *Animal Farm* and *Nineteen Eighty-Four* served as anti-communist instruments because they lacked a definite stance that would also criticize capitalist control. Their political ambiguity increased their usefulness for ideological aims.

D. The Logic of Appropriation

Orwell’s political ambiguity stems from a structural flaw that made it easy for the ruling class to co-opt his work. This wasn’t because Orwell was reactionary—he was not. Nor was it due to the CIA and the Book-of-the-Month Club being particularly shrewd—though they certainly were. Instead, it was because Orwell’s political framework contained an ideological gap that the bourgeois state could exploit. Ethical socialism can be absorbed by liberalism, and anti-Stalinism without a revolutionary basis can be redirected against socialism itself. A critique of totalitarianism that overlooks capitalism can be used to justify the capitalist state. This logic explains Orwell’s posthumous fate: the ruling class didn’t need to falsify Orwell, only to emphasize certain parts of his work.

7. The Revolutionary Counterfactual: The Orwell Who Never Existed

To fully grasp Orwell’s political contradictions, we must consider the elusive figure that haunts his work but never appears: the Orwell who might have embraced Trotsky and the Fourth International’s revolutionary Marxist path. This isn’t a trivial counterfactual; it serves as a tool to clarify history. Reconstructing the political worldview Orwell rejected uncovers the limits of the one he inhabited. Envisioning the Orwell who could have existed allows us to better understand the Orwell that was.

This exercise does not intend to categorize Orwell as a Trotskyist or imply he was nearing revolutionary Marxism. Historical evidence indicates Orwell strongly disliked Trotskyism, mainly because he saw it as excessively rigid and doctrinal. Nonetheless, this aversion originated from the political confusion caused by Stalinist corruption in the Soviet Union and the weakening of the Comintern as a revolutionary force. Orwell’s opposition to Trotskyism was not founded on an in-depth critique but was shaped by the ideological chaos of his time.

A revolutionary Orwell—who considers the Fourth International as the true successor of the October Revolution—would have a markedly different body of work than the one we recognize today. This Orwell would view Stalinism not as an inevitable outcome of socialism but as a bureaucratic counter-revolution. He would understand that the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy are not based on Marxist principles but are carried out by a parasitic elite that hijacked the achievements of 1917. Moreover, he would see that fighting Stalinism requires bolstering revolutionary politics rather than abandoning them.

This recognition would have significantly altered Orwell’s key works. Instead of viewing Animal Farm as a general allegory of power’s corrupting nature, it would have been a precise critique of the specific decline of the workers’ state in history. The book would emphasize not just the deception of Stalinist leaders, but also the political motivations behind the Popular Front, the suppression of the Left Opposition, and the betrayal of the global working class. It would have endorsed the October Revolution, rather than lament its failures.

Nineteen Eighty-Four would have been quite different if it focused more on materialist views of the state rather than just philosophical ideas about power. It would have shown how both capitalist democracies and Stalinist regimes display authoritarian traits. The novel also would have pointed out that control mechanisms—like continuous warfare, ideological influence, and shaping consent—are not only used by totalitarian governments but are essential features of imperialist capitalism.

The Cold War regime would likely have struggled to confiscate these works, as they challenged both the Stalinist bureaucracy and capitalist elites. Such writings would have aligned Orwell more with revolutionary Marxism than with the liberal anti-communists who linked to him after his death. As a result, Orwell would have been viewed as a threat to the status quo rather than a symbol of its ideological triumph.

The absence of this imagined Orwell—the Orwell who never truly existed—is thus significant historically. It reveals the limits of the real Orwell’s views, showing that his political contradictions were not just personal but also structural. These contradictions arose from a stance that opposed Stalinism yet did not fully support the revolutionary alternative. This highlights that Orwell’s work, despite its impact, was shaped by the crisis within the international socialist movement and the ideological pressures of the Popular Front. Furthermore, it suggests that Orwell’s ideological arguments are closely linked to the political choices he made—and those he was unable to make.

Rebuilding the Orwell who never was involves revisiting the revolutionary vision Orwell overlooked. It requires acknowledging that the fight against Stalinism was not opposition to socialism but a struggle for it. Understanding that Orwell’s failure to see this distinction is key to grasping his work and legacy. This perspective leads to the article’s final point: the discussion about Orwell’s importance ultimately mirrors a broader debate about the meaning of socialism.

8. Conclusion: Orwell, Anti‑Stalinism, and the Meaning of Socialism

For a long time, two misconceptions have shaped the way Orwell’s history is perceived: the idealized image of Orwell as a moral figure held by liberals, and scholars’ reluctance to confront the political contradictions in his work. Rodden’s *Becoming George Orwell* provides a nuanced attempt to contextualize Orwell’s reputation after his death, but it still is influenced by the same ideological lens it seeks to critique. By framing appropriation as how Orwell’s work is received rather than how it was created, Rodden inadvertently supports the notion that Orwell’s political beliefs were consistent. and that the Cold War only distorted them. This belief is not only analytically flawed but also obscures the political reasoning behind Orwell’s enduring posthumous influence.

The mainstream liberal and social-democratic view even elevates Orwell to a secular saint of “democratic socialism.” His moral integrity is often viewed as justifying any lack of political consistency. This perspective emphasizes Orwell’s ethical values but downplays the revolutionary context necessary to understand his anti-Stalinist stance. It commends Orwell’s critiques of totalitarian regimes but neglects his criticisms of capitalism. The focus tends to be on *Animal Farm* and *Nineteen Eighty-Four*, while works like *The Road to Wigan Pier* and *Homage to Catalonia* are often overlooked. Moreover, it usually excludes Trotsky and the Fourth International, whose inclusion would highlight the shortcomings of Orwell’s ethical socialism and demonstrate that moral instincts alone cannot solve bureaucratic decline.

Conversely, Mazelis and the WSWS highlight the political element often overlooked or dismissed by Rodden and mainstream discourse. They argue that anti-Stalinism holds significance only when it’s connected to a revolutionary goal. While Orwell genuinely opposed Stalinism, he did not do so with a revolutionary purpose. His political affiliations — including the ILP and POUM — placed him among centrist groups that distanced themselves from both Stalinism and revolutionary Marxism. His resistance to Trotskyism stemmed more from a suspicion of strict ideological loyalty than from a thorough engagement with Trotsky’s ideas. Orwell’s socialism was motivated by ethics rather than theory, sentimental rather than scientific. Although his critique of totalitarianism was powerful, it lacked the dialectical nuance needed to analyze authoritarian features in capitalist democracies.

This structural ambiguity—ethical socialism without revolutionary theory, anti-Stalinism without revolutionary roots, and a critique of totalitarianism without addressing capitalism—explains why the ruling class easily co-opted Orwell’s work. The Cold War state didn’t distort Orwell; it exploited the contradictions within his politics. ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ served as anti-communist tools because they lacked a clear stance condemning capitalist domination. Orwell’s ethical socialism was compatible with liberalism, as it did not threaten capitalism. His anti-Stalinism could be used against socialism by lacking a revolutionary alternative. Similarly, his critique of totalitarianism was exploited by opponents because it didn’t fully address the link between bureaucratic control and capitalist exploitation.

Imagining an alternative Orwell—one who might have backed the Fourth International—highlights the significance of this analysis. Such an Orwell would have produced anti-Stalinist writings that the bourgeois state could not suppress. He would have supported the October Revolution while denouncing the crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy. He would have viewed the fight against Stalinism as a struggle for socialism, not against it. Additionally, he would have recognized that the control mechanisms in Nineteen Eighty-Four are not exclusive to totalitarian regimes but are rooted in imperialist capitalism.

The missing version of Orwell—the one who never existed—exposes the limitations of the Orwell who did. It highlights that Orwell’s political contradictions were not just personal but structural, stemming from a stance that opposed Stalinism but did not support the revolutionary alternative. Despite his powerful work, Orwell’s writings were influenced by the crisis within the international socialist movement and the ideological pressures of the Popular Front. Additionally, his ideological perspectives are closely linked to the political decisions he made—and those he was unable to make.

A Marxist historiography should therefore reject the liberal myth that Orwell was the sole conscience of the twentieth century. It must also dismiss the academic view that Orwell’s politics were consistent or that his anti-Stalinism can be separated from the revolutionary alternative he misunderstood. Furthermore, it should reject the comforting notion that depicting Orwell’s image distorts his ideas, when in reality, it highlights the contradictions in his worldview.

The main issue isn’t simply Orwell’s intentions or interpretations, but what he couldn’t anticipate. The clear answer is that the Fourth International was the only consistent opposition to both Stalinism and capitalism in the twentieth century. Overlooking this aspect in Orwell’s history omits its core. Acknowledging it shows that the debate about Orwell’s legacy mainly hinges on the true definition of socialism.

Notes

The Spectre Haunting Orwell Studies-John Rodden-The Orwell Society Journal 27 Spring 2026