Hah, this was my first impression too, when I first read that years before, but let me offer a different perspective here...
1) Middle class better at theory than working class—is there actually anything surprising here? I mean, if you take a random sample of middle class and a random sample of working class, who would you expect to do better at a math test? Science test? History test? Betting on the middle class is the obvious winning move here, right?
I might go even further and bet on the middle class in many topics that are close to the actual everyday work of the working class, because while I would expect the welders to be highly knowledgeable about welding, cooks to be experienced at cooking, and so on, each specialization is just a tiny fraction of the entire working class, and I would expect the rest of them to drag the average on the specialized knowledge really low; while on the side of the middle class, you get someone who has welding as a hobby, someone who watches a lot of YouTube video about welding despite never actually doing it, many people who remember something from high school physics or chemistry, some people who remember reading some online article about welding, and some answers probably can be guessed just using general education and common sense… so, yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if the group containing all the professional welders (but who make only a tiny fraction of it) to lose at this comparison, too.
Now if you look from a perspective of someone who considers socialism a kind of science—like a subset or intersection of economics, sociology, history, and whatever—is it surprising if the working class as a whole sucks at the theory of economics, sociology, and history, and the middle class contains both the actual experts and most of the amateurs?
2) Hypocrisy? Look at the trust fund kids at expensive universities, preaching about social justice and anti-racism, until they graduate, and afterwards many of them become managers and CEOs, measuring the bathroom breaks of their employees, and expanding the prison-industrial complex. But even assuming that most of them are hypocrites, does that make racism the right thing? What about capitalism? (Disclaimer: I am not sincerely comparing capitalism to racism here, just trying to make an argument for someone who might feel that way.)
3) Are many socialists also polyamorous hippies? A similar argument can successfully be made about rationalists; we happen to be more picky about astrology and religion (with the possible exception for Buddhism), but many of us also believe in technological rapture and resurrection of frozen bodies, so maybe we are just more sci-fi flavored, or maybe just living in later century than Orwell’s contemporaries. No problem finding a feminist or a vegan at a LW/SSC meetup. Some people take this as a strong argument against rationalists, some don’t. Being one of the latter, why should I take it as a strong argument against socialists?
But I agree that it makes a really bad impression… and if you choose to remain a socialist regardless, because you believe in the ideas even if you no longer believe in the people and groups, you are going to be a very lonely socialist… which I think describes Orwell correctly.
1) Middle class better at theory than working class—is there actually anything surprising here? I mean, if you take a random sample of middle class and a random sample of working class, who would you expect to do better at a math test? Science test? History test? Betting on the middle class is the obvious winning move here, right?
Part of the socialist ideals is that the working class should actually have the power to make a lot of decisions. Believing that the middle class is better goes counter to socialist ideas.
I can’t speak for Orwell, or actually any socialist, but there are ways around this.
For example, you might believe that if we improve educational opportunities for the workers (they would support this), then their beliefs will become similar to what the middle-class socialists believe now. In other words, they only disagree because they didn’t have time to learn and reflect, but if we provide them more free time (they would support this), they will. That is, in the actual socialism, the decisions will be made by actual workers, and they will be quite similar to what the middle-class socialists promote now.
Also, I think the classes are supposed to be eliminated in socialism.
There’s a general idea of starting out with the “rule of the proletariat” after the revolution in Marxist ideology which means actual working class people would govern. They would also govern without first needing to be educated for that.
Social democrat ideology doesn’t have the same issue but the Marxists do have it.
Thanks. That is a timeless, searing attack on Socialism.
Hah, this was my first impression too, when I first read that years before, but let me offer a different perspective here...
1) Middle class better at theory than working class—is there actually anything surprising here? I mean, if you take a random sample of middle class and a random sample of working class, who would you expect to do better at a math test? Science test? History test? Betting on the middle class is the obvious winning move here, right?
I might go even further and bet on the middle class in many topics that are close to the actual everyday work of the working class, because while I would expect the welders to be highly knowledgeable about welding, cooks to be experienced at cooking, and so on, each specialization is just a tiny fraction of the entire working class, and I would expect the rest of them to drag the average on the specialized knowledge really low; while on the side of the middle class, you get someone who has welding as a hobby, someone who watches a lot of YouTube video about welding despite never actually doing it, many people who remember something from high school physics or chemistry, some people who remember reading some online article about welding, and some answers probably can be guessed just using general education and common sense… so, yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if the group containing all the professional welders (but who make only a tiny fraction of it) to lose at this comparison, too.
Now if you look from a perspective of someone who considers socialism a kind of science—like a subset or intersection of economics, sociology, history, and whatever—is it surprising if the working class as a whole sucks at the theory of economics, sociology, and history, and the middle class contains both the actual experts and most of the amateurs?
2) Hypocrisy? Look at the trust fund kids at expensive universities, preaching about social justice and anti-racism, until they graduate, and afterwards many of them become managers and CEOs, measuring the bathroom breaks of their employees, and expanding the prison-industrial complex. But even assuming that most of them are hypocrites, does that make racism the right thing? What about capitalism? (Disclaimer: I am not sincerely comparing capitalism to racism here, just trying to make an argument for someone who might feel that way.)
3) Are many socialists also polyamorous hippies? A similar argument can successfully be made about rationalists; we happen to be more picky about astrology and religion (with the possible exception for Buddhism), but many of us also believe in technological rapture and resurrection of frozen bodies, so maybe we are just more sci-fi flavored, or maybe just living in later century than Orwell’s contemporaries. No problem finding a feminist or a vegan at a LW/SSC meetup. Some people take this as a strong argument against rationalists, some don’t. Being one of the latter, why should I take it as a strong argument against socialists?
But I agree that it makes a really bad impression… and if you choose to remain a socialist regardless, because you believe in the ideas even if you no longer believe in the people and groups, you are going to be a very lonely socialist… which I think describes Orwell correctly.
Part of the socialist ideals is that the working class should actually have the power to make a lot of decisions. Believing that the middle class is better goes counter to socialist ideas.
I can’t speak for Orwell, or actually any socialist, but there are ways around this.
For example, you might believe that if we improve educational opportunities for the workers (they would support this), then their beliefs will become similar to what the middle-class socialists believe now. In other words, they only disagree because they didn’t have time to learn and reflect, but if we provide them more free time (they would support this), they will. That is, in the actual socialism, the decisions will be made by actual workers, and they will be quite similar to what the middle-class socialists promote now.
Also, I think the classes are supposed to be eliminated in socialism.
There’s a general idea of starting out with the “rule of the proletariat” after the revolution in Marxist ideology which means actual working class people would govern. They would also govern without first needing to be educated for that.
Social democrat ideology doesn’t have the same issue but the Marxists do have it.
I can’t simulate a (non-Leninist) Marxist well enough to answer this. Yes, when you put it this way, it sounds too naive.
Leninism assumes a “vanguard” that will lead the proletariat towards its coherent extrapolated volition.
Mondragon Corporation has management, but the workers-owners can vote them out. No idea what Marx would think about this.
The idea that people are equal in the sense of one hour of work being the same is one of the cornerstones of Marx’s work.