>Orwell thought that all political theories and ideologies - except socialism - are hopeless and disillusioning. But Orwell did not mean the utopian Socialism, but the realistic view of this political line and his aim was to split the two types of socialism and to establish the realistic one. He argued that if there were no more very rich and no more very poor people, such a society would still have a vast number of other problems to solve, because a society which is balanced in wealth, is not a perfect society. In Orwell's point of view most of the labour parties of Europe were just parties in the hand of trade unions, that were concerned just of local problems and especially wages. He judged that real socialism can just be successful in Europe, when there is something like the United States of Europe, because it would include half the skilled industrial workers of the world. His dream continued that Europe then will be an example for the whole world and that socialism - real socialism and not totalitarian communism - will spread around the world. Although he was as anticommunist as anti-totalitarian he did not criticise the Soviet Union, because he could not clearly see, what was behind this system of society. So he wrote in an essay that the people of the USSR are the hungriest, but at the same time the best fed, that these people are most advanced and most backward and that they are the happiest and the most miserable as well. He then hoped very strongly that the world will recognise Stalin's policy not as clever, but merely stupid and in best case opportunistic. While writing Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1948 he was fully convinced that the Communist revolution in Moscow was just a failed experiment, because the Communists got a permanent ruling caste, which was neither elected nor recruited by birth, but by adoption. If they had not done so, the opposition would have grown and they would have criticised the whole system.
Orwell's political views were a mess