WILLIAM PHILLIPS
179
ing a better society, however vague were both the ends and the means. I
remember being on a panel at a meeting a number of years ago, at
which someone in the audience asked me whether I was a socialist. In–
stead of questioning the questioner about what was meant by socialism, I
hesitantly and faintly said, "No." A panelist, a well-known writer, sitting
next to me, whispered in a shocked voice, "What, you aren't a social–
ist?" Shamefacedly, betraying the fact that I had not broken with the
ideological
zeitgeist,
with the political orthodoxies and programmatic
idealism of the time, I said, "Yes, I'm a socialist."
I assume Orwell would have said the same thing. After all, Sidney
Hook, like Orwell, one of the leaders in the intellectual struggle against
communism, also said he was a socialist. But it was not the socialism of
Marx or Lenin. For all of us, it was a symbolic terminology for our
ideals and for our frustrations. But I think if Orwell were alive, he
probably would have abandoned the label, as I have, because it is too
confusing.
There is some corroboration of the portrayal I have drawn of Or–
well's politics in a conversation I had with him. I saw Orwell in ] 950 in
London shortly before he died. To be sure, I didn't quiz him about his
political views, but we talked for a long time , and I had the impression
he regarded himself as a highly critical member of the liberal left. He
struck me as what has been known as a liberal anticommunist. We must
remember this was a long time ago, and though in many respects Orwell
was ahead of his time, in others he was a man of his time.
w.
P.
