[eBook, Pre Order] Animal Farm by George Orwell - Free @ Amazon AU, UK, US

2190

[eBook, Pre Order] Animal Farm by George Orwell - Free @ Amazon AU, UK, US

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

Scrooge McDeal on 18/05/2023 - 07:32 amazon.com.au (1648 clicks)
Last edited 18/05/2023 - 10:53 by 1 other user

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Free with Kindle. No Kindle unlimited needed.

Animal Farm by George Orwell
Amazon AU
Amazon UK
Amazon US

About

Animal Farm is a beast fable, in the form of a satirical allegorical novella, by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. It tells the story of a group of farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, hoping to create a society where the animals can be equal, free, and happy. Ultimately, the rebellion is betrayed, and under the dictatorship of a pig named Napoleon, the farm ends up in a state as bad as it was before.

According to Orwell, Animal Farm reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union. Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Barcelona May Days conflicts between the POUM and Stalinist forces during the Spanish Civil War. [a] In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin ("un conte satirique contre Staline"), and in his essay "Why I Write" (1946), wrote that Animal Farm was the first book in which he tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole".

Books & Magazines Animal Farm eBook

Freebie
24 May 2023 2:51pm

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

Amazon Cloud Reader

closed Comments

hubs1982 on 18/05/2023 - 07:37

+1

Thanks OP, great book!
fantombloo on 18/05/2023 - 08:02

+5

Orwell, a democratic socialist

Need a book to explain this to people - that it's possible, that it's different from a social democrat, that Orwell would have as much to say about the West today as he did about Stalin in his own day.
- R4 on 18/05/2023 - 10:32
  
  +2
  
  Indeed. Although I'm a hard-right, conservative libertarian, I can really appreciate what Orwell had to say on a lot of things - he very much tapped into the World that he lived and spoke a lot of truth. Much of what he wrote is still relevant today - including this book.
- besttraveltech on 18/05/2023 - 14:20
  
  Western farm animals haven't revolted either!
  - fantombloo on 18/05/2023 - 15:23
    
    +2
    
    No, they're generally too tightly confined and killed in their youth.
- 1st-Amendment on 18/05/2023 - 16:55
  
  +1
  
  Need a book to explain this to people - that it's possible
  
  What's possible? Provide examples.
  - besttraveltech on 18/05/2023 - 17:11
    
    Some would argue that Bolivia is a successful democratic socialist state. As far as non-state entities, Mondragon is a democratic socialist corporation.
    - rokufan on 18/05/2023 - 23:32
      
      Bolivia is the best example of a democratic socialism success story?! Rofl
      - besttraveltech on 19/05/2023 - 09:12
        
        @rokufan: While I wouldn't want to live there, Bolivia is a functioning democractic socialist state, so it's the only state that could make the claim that it is successful. I guess it depends on what you consider success to be.
        
        They've only had that form of government for 3 decades or so, so it's not really long enough to know how it will turn out.
        
        1st-Amendment on 19/05/2023 - 12:43
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        so it's not really long enough to know how it will turn out.
        
        I wouldn't want to live there
        
        I think you've answered your own question. Or for some objective scoring, 106/167 and falling doesn't sound like a great result: https://www.prosperity.com/globe/bolivia
        For comparison China's 'freer' market system has only been around for 30 years and it is noticeably doing much, much better. East Germany was merged into West Germany 30 years ago and it also doing much, much better. So in a virtual race of 30 year old systems of government, Bolivia is right at the back.
        
        I guess it depends on what you consider success to be.
        
        I find not wanting to flee your own country is a good start. Immigration is a great indicator of success. People don't tend to leave where they are if they think they are doing well, or have the potential to do well. And people tend move to places where they think they will have a better chance at life.
        Bolivia isn't really attracting migrants, other than from neighbouring countries that are doing worse, and a lot of them seem to want to leave. Why do you think that is?
        https://www.iom.int/countries/bolivia
        
        Also, why don't all the Bernie Bros move there and give it red hot go if they believe in it so much? Why does the great idea involve taking something that is already successful and appropriating it, rather than build it from scratch like everyone else had to?
        
        besttraveltech on 19/05/2023 - 14:32
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: Before I address your points, I want to make it clear that I believe in free markets, private property, and democracy. In other words, I am
        laissez-faire. I just find your argument poor.
        
        I think you've answered your own question.
        
        I didn't ask a question.
        
        106/167 and falling
        
        It is interesting that the fall coincided with a right-wing military coup, which was ended when people voted the democratic-socialists back in.
        
        Also, Lebanon "has a competitive and free market regime and a strong laissez-faire commercial tradition. The Lebanese economy is service-oriented; main growth sectors include banking and tourism. There are no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital movement." At the same time, Lebanon is 112th, down from 77th! Bolivia is 106 down from 100.
        
        While I do believe Capitalism leads to growth, there's obviously a lot more at play than simple economic models. The majority of the countries below Bolivia are under-developed market economies with private property rights.
        
        Growth and living standards also aren't the goal of the Bolivian MAS government. They are sustainability focused, of which they're in the top 50 countries, according to your source. Their Social Capital and Personal Freedoms are also disproportionate to their economy, in the 70's. If you research MAS' policies and campaign platform, you will see that this is a conscious choice by voters.
        
        So in a virtual race of 30 year old systems of government, Bolivia is right at the back.
        
        Sure, out of your cherry picked examples, Bolivia is at the back… but Bolivia is also pioneering a new system, not reverting back to tried-and-true capitalism like East Germany and China was.
        
        Bolivia isn't really attracting migrants, other than from neighbouring countries that are doing worse
        
        Bolivia is losing 4 migrants out of every 10,000 people. That's not that many. Lebanon is losing 200.
        
        Also, why don't all the Bernie Bros move there and give it red hot go if they believe in it so much
        
        Why don't you move to America, Mr. @1st-Amendment?
        
        Why does the great idea involve taking something that is already successful and appropriating it, rather than build it from scratch like everyone else had to?
        
        Firstly, Capitalism, as much as like it, wasn't "built from scratch". It evolved out of Feudalism. While I am against socialism, socialist believe that socialism is the next step in that evolution. So to think that states "build from scratch" is a simple misunderstanding of economics.
        
        Secondly, why would you want to "appropriate" another country and culture simply because you like their economic model? Wouldn't you just change to that economic model and keep your land, culture, relationships, etc? Catholics don't all move to Rome.
        
        1st-Amendment on 20/05/2023 - 16:38
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        I just find your argument poor.
        
        Cool. Let's see if 'what you find' and 'reality' meet up…
        
        I didn't ask a question.
        
        Well you did. "it's not really long enough to know how it will turn out." is a form of questioning since you are wondering about a unknown future result when the result is actually known.
        We know it turned out bad, just like every other time it was tried.
        
        It is interesting that the fall coincided with a right-wing military coup, which was ended when people voted the democratic-socialists back in
        
        This is an interesting comment. I don't really know much about Bolivia but a quick read tells me the 'populist uprising/coup (depending on which bias your media outlet has) in 2019 was between rival Democratic Socialist factions over the president's attempt to bypass constitutional limits on power, and that the military stepped in purely to maintain peace. One socialist was replaced by another, who then got put in prison and replaced by a third while the ex-President was hanging out at a cocaine plantation.
        So the pattern of socialist leaders wanting to hang on to power was the cause of this whole mess. It had nothing to do with right-wing anything.
        The movement downward is entirely due to Democratic Socialist politics.
        
        Also, Lebanon
        
        Also changing the subject, but sure I'm happy to explore this new revelation.
        
        Lebanon is 112th, down from 77th!
        
        Cool. Now a few points:
        1. An example is not a proof. And example can be a disproof, but it is never a proof.
        2. Correlation is not causation.
        3. Civil war
        
        Sure, out of your cherry picked examples,
        
        I didn't choose Bolivia as an example to demonstrate how well Social Democracy is working.
        China and East Germany were the obvious comparison because they are also roughly 30 years old. If you have others to compare then let's hear them. I can't think of any other off the top of my head, but I'll gladly take a look if you know of any.
        
        but Bolivia is also pioneering a new system, not reverting back to tried-and-true capitalism like East Germany and China was.
        
        So if we want to compare which is better we simply look at how they each went. If tried and true produces better results than the 'new system' it is actually better and should be retained.
        And if it's recognised as being better then why would anyone with a brain keep proposing the inferior system over and over?
        
        That's not that many
        
        Still negative though. Australia is taking in something like 400,000 this year, the US is doing about 10000/day! mostly from more socialist countries. Why do you think that is? If the Capitalism is so bad, why are so many people trying to move there? Why is no-one moving to these socialist utopias?
        
        Why don't you move to America, Mr. @1st-Amendment?
        
        Oh I see you avoided my question. I live in a wealthy capitalistic economy and am not the one complaining about what it provides. I would happily move to any other wealthy capitalistic and free economy and plan on doing exactly that once I finish up some projects I have going on here. This is what is so great about economic freedom, you have more freedom to do things you enjoy.
        
        Now, back to the original question, why aren't any of the pro-socialist democrats moving to the places they support? Don't you find it extremely odd that this never happens?
        
        socialist believe that socialism is the next step in that evolution
        
        And they entitled to believe that because they are in a free country. This is the crazy irony of that crazy ideology. The very freedom that allows them to express their crazy opinions is the thing they want to replace. And they ignore that fact that it's been tried numerous times and failed every single time.
        
        Secondly, why would you want to "appropriate" another country and culture simply because you like their economic model?
        
        You are not appropriating anything, you are simply migrating and assimilating into a culture you think is better, just like the many immigrants who come to the West for a better life. Why is that traffic only one way? People who like freedom move to freer places, but people who like socialism never want to move to any of the places where it exists? Seems odd don't you think?
        
        If I thought it was genuinely better I would move. (I've already lived in 4 different countries for precisely these reasons). The only answer for them not moving is that deep down they know it's not better but can't bring themselves to accept that fact.
        
        Wouldn't you just change to that economic model and keep your land,
        
        It's not your land. That is where the logic falls over. They want to confiscate land that doesn't belong to them in the name of some sort of undefinable cosmic justice. And despite this being tried numerous times previously and failing each time, they still want to impose it on the rest of us all against our will in the belief that we'll all somehow be better off in some undefinable and unproven way.
        
        culture, relationships, etc? Catholics don't all move to Rome.
        
        Because in a free country Catholics can practice here too, as can Muslims, Buddhists and Jews. Another win for freedom!
        But a person in a socialist country cannot operate a free market, the only option is to move someone which allows this. A socialist can however create a socialist entity within a free market economy. Socialists can fulfil their wishes right now today, but not one of them choose to do this. This speaks volume about their ideology.
        
        If I was a socialist and thought my ideas were the best, there is an easy path to realise the dream:
        1. Setup your economic model somewhere. It doesn't even have to be another country, buy some land out bush and start a community with all your Bernie Bros, based on your shared values and build something special.
        2. Since it's clearly a better system, it will produce the outcomes that you desire and will attract more like-minded people who will live happily under that system, and it will grow and flourish.
        3. As the community grows, more people will notice your success and either move there to enjoy its benefits, or try to emulate it.
        4. Eventually it will take over as the standard model since it has shown to produce better results.
        This is how it worked for every other model, why not do that?
        
        So it's easy, but where are these examples in real life? Why is no-one doing this, they're all just complaining and demanding free stuff from other people like entitled children?
        I'd actually be really interested to see a real world example to compare because I'm genuinely interested in better ways to do things, that's why capitalism works so well, it allows the freedom for better things to flourish. But socialism in any of its variants has never shown to be better, for the simple reason that greater centralised control invariably ends up with more inefficiency, bloat and corruption and lower productivity. And its adherents can never provide even one example of where it worked out well.
        
        besttraveltech on 21/05/2023 - 21:26
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Cool. Let's see if 'what you find' and 'reality' meet up…
        
        It does :)
        
        Well you did. "it's not really long enough to know how it will turn out." is a form of questioning since you are wondering about a unknown future result when the result is actually known.
        
        No, that's still a statement of fact…Acknowledging uncertainty isn't the same as questioning.
        
        This is an interesting comment. I don't really know much about Bolivia but a quick read tells me the 'populist uprising/coup in 2019 was between rival Democratic Socialist factions over the president's attempt to bypass constitutional limits on power, and that the military stepped in purely to maintain peace.
        
        It wasn't that populist since the same party was voted back in. That's like saying Jan 6 was a populist uprising :P
        
        One socialist was replaced by another
        
        Yes, the protege of the first president was voted in by the people
        
        So the pattern of socialist leaders wanting to hang on to power was the cause of this whole mess.
        
        Again, they were immediately voted back in
        
        It had nothing to do with right-wing anything.
        
        Morales won the election then the right wing military took power…
        
        The movement downward is entirely due to Democratic Socialist politics.
        
        What movement downward? Economically? Sure, I already agreed and pointed out that the voters chose this consciously to prioritise other issues, such as the environment. Economics aren't the only measure of success.
        
        Also changing the subject, but sure I'm happy to explore this new revelation.
        
        How's pointing to a capitalist country underperforming Bolivia "changing the topic"?
        
        Cool. Now a few points:
        1. An example is not a proof. And example can be a disproof, but it is never a proof.
        2. Correlation is not causation.
        3. Civil war
        
        I pointed out Lebanon to show you that correlation isn't causation. LMAO. So what about civil war? As I said, there are many factors. This proves my point…
        
        I didn't choose Bolivia as an example to demonstrate how well Social Democracy is working.
        
        How would you have cherry picked it if you didn't pick it at all? Irrelevant comment.
        
        China and East Germany were the obvious comparison because they are also roughly 30 years old. If you have others to compare then let's hear them. I can't think of any other off the top of my head, but I'll gladly take a look if you know of any.
        
        Neither were democratic socialist, so neither were accurate comparisons.
        
        So if we want to compare which is better we simply look at how they each went. If tried and true produces better results than the 'new system' it is actually better and should be retained.
        
        lol, no. That's such a luddite thought process.
        
        That's like saying a horse is better than cars because, in 1914, horses were more reliable, cheaper to purchase, cheaper to maintain, easier to find, easier to use, etc.
        
        And if it's recognised as being better then why would anyone with a brain keep proposing the inferior system over and over?
        
        I recognise it as better, but Bolivia (and other socialists) don't, hence they try new systems.
        
        Why is no-one moving to these socialist utopias?
        
        See two points above. I doubt many people were migrating to France when it was beheading the Feudal aristocracy. Do you still think Feudalism is better than capitalism? Do you still think Aristocracy is better than Democracy? Quit with the fallacies…
        
        Oh I see you avoided my question.
        
        No, I didn't. I pointed out the flawed logic that we should abandon all other considerations and move to places where they have one thing that we like.
        
        I live in a wealthy capitalistic economy and am not the one complaining about what it provides.
        
        Your username suggests you'd rather live in a country with the protections the U.S.' 1st Amendment provides, correct? Australia does not. Do you see my point?
        
        I would happily move to any other wealthy capitalistic and free economy and plan on doing exactly that once I finish up some projects I have going on here. This is what is so great about economic freedom, you have more freedom to do things you enjoy.
        
        So you'd move to Germany? Where it's cold, everyone speaks another language, you don't have any family, etc, all because they have a capitalist economy? C'mon, my point is obvious.
        
        Now, back to the original question, why aren't any of the pro-socialist democrats moving to the places they support? Don't you find it extremely odd that this never happens?
        
        Your original question is idiotic. As I've said, because people don't want to leave their families, culture, etc.
        
        And they entitled to believe that because they are in a free country. This is the crazy irony of that crazy ideology. The very freedom that allows them to express their crazy opinions is the thing they want to replace.
        
        You obviously don't understand what democratic socialism is. Democratic socialists believe in freedom of political expression, they just don't believe in free markets. Those are two different things.
        
        You are not appropriating anything, you are simply migrating and assimilating into a culture you think is better, just like the many immigrants who come to the West for a better life. Why is that traffic only one way? People who like freedom move to freer places, but people who like socialism never want to move to any of the places where it exists? Seems odd don't you think?
        
        I've addressed all of this above.
        
        The only answer for them not moving is that deep down they know it's not better but can't bring themselves to accept that fact.
        
        So it's not because they want to live with their family on the land their ancestors have cultivated, speaking their own language, etc.?
        
        It's not your land. That is where the logic falls over.
        
        Yes, it is.
        
        They want to confiscate land that doesn't belong to them in the name of some sort of undefinable cosmic justice.
        
        You mean like when the state Government wants to build a new highway? Or like ACT's 100 year property leases? The hypocrisy…
        
        And despite this being tried numerous times previously and failing each time,
        
        like automobiles and horses…
        
        they still want to impose it on the rest of us all against our will
        
        Bolivia democratically voted it in, their people are free to leave, they didn't invade Australia, nor did they back a coup like the U.S. did in Bolivia.
        
        Because in a free country Catholics can practice here too, as can Muslims, Buddhists and Jews. Another win for freedom!
        
        There is freedom of religion in Bolivia as well. Again, you're confusing free markets with other forms of freedom (political, religious, etc).
        
        But a person in a socialist country cannot operate a free market, the only option is to move someone which allows this. A socialist can however create a socialist entity within a free market economy. Socialists can fulfil their wishes right now today, but not one of them choose to do this. This speaks volume about their ideology.
        
        I agree with this, hence my reference to Mondragon, but as per above, it's irrelevant to why people don't migrate. There are lots of reasons other than economic freedom for why people don't want to move, especially when they have political freedom, religious freedom, etc.
        
        Setup your economic model somewhere.
        
        Like Bolivia did?
        
        It doesn't even have to be another country, buy some land out bush and start a community with all your Bernie Bros, based on your shared values and build something special.
        
        Yes, it's called Bolivia.
        
        Since it's clearly a better system, it will produce the outcomes that you desire and will attract more like-minded people who will live happily under that system, and it will grow and flourish.
        
        Yes, Bolivia has disproportionately more personal liberties and a more sustainable environment to it's economic power. This is the platform that the MAS government ran on. By its own measure of success, Bolivia has achieved its goals.
        
        As the community grows, more people will notice your success and either move there to enjoy its benefits, or try to emulate it.
        
        The Greens do push for this constantly :P
        
        Eventually it will take over as the standard model since it has shown to produce better results.
        
        Why does it have to take over? That's not a very free-market way of thinking. Why can't people do different things in different places as it suits them? Isn't that democracy?
        
        This is how it worked for every other model, why not do that?
        
        Given that there are a variety of economic, political, and religious models, you idea of one idea taking over isn't true, so your conclusion is built on a false premise.
        
        So it's easy,
        
        No, it's not.
        
        I'd actually be really interested to see a real world example to compare
        
        Mondragon. Bolivia.
        
        because I'm genuinely interested in better ways to do things
        
        No, you're interested in measuring national economic growth. Bolivia isn't focused on that.
        
        But socialism in any of its variants has never shown to be better, for the simple reason that greater centralised control invariably ends up with more inefficiency
        
        I agree that centralised economies are inefficient, but you do know that there is market socialism, right? Like Bolivia has?
        
        bloat and corruption
        
        Is an issue in Australia, America, etc
        
        and lower productivity
        
        Bolivia has priorities other than productivity, such as the environment and wealth equity.
        
        And its adherents can never provide even one example of where it worked out well.
        
        They can, you just continually reject their examples because you refuse to acknowledge that not everybody considers economic productivity as the measure of success.
        
        You're the type of person of who can't fathom that someone would drop out of law school to be a part-time barista and focus on their songwriting. Sure, they're not going to make as much money unless they manage to get lucky, but maybe they'd rather make coffee and play guitar than spend all day in a court room, even if they're wearing Armani.
        
        1st-Amendment on 22/05/2023 - 13:55
        
        @besttraveltech: Ok this thread is getting too long to track all the strawmen and non-sequiturs, so I'll condense it a little…
        
        It wasn't that populist since the same party was voted back in.
        
        Populist doesn't mean 'most popular'.
        
        Morales won the election then the right wing military took power…
        
        There was no right wing in Bolivia during the uprising/coup. There were two warring factions of left wing, including the military who were just trying to keep the peace. The implication of right-wing anything is false.
        
        What movement downward? Economically?
        
        I provided the metrics, almost all of which were not economic.
        
        Sure, I already agreed and pointed out that the voters chose this consciously to prioritise other issues, such as the environment.
        
        I provided the metrics, almost all of which were not economic
        
        I pointed out Lebanon to show you that correlation isn't causation. LMAO. So what about civil war? As I said, there are many factors. This proves my point…
        
        That is not what the word 'proof' means.
        
        Neither were democratic socialist, so neither were accurate comparisons.
        
        They are useful for comparing.
        
        That's like saying a horse is better than cars because, in 1914, horses were more reliable, cheaper to purchase, cheaper to maintain, easier to find, easier to use, etc.
        
        Interesting deflection… completely inaccurate but sure…
        
        See two points above. I doubt many people were migrating to France when it was beheading the Feudal aristocracy. Do you still think Feudalism is better than capitalism? Do you still think Aristocracy is better than Democracy? Quit with the fallacies…
        
        Are you making my argument for me? You've just argued why your Lebanon example sucks, because the country was in the midst of a civil war. But yes outside of the civil war, many, many people migrated to France, in fact they have so many people coming that it's causing a whole new issue now. Unlike Bolivia.
        
        No, I didn't. I pointed out the flawed logic that we should abandon all other considerations and move to places where they have one thing that we like.
        
        We considered many things, all in the link I sent.
        
        Your username suggests you'd rather live in a country with the protections the U.S.' 1st Amendment provides, correct? Australia does not. Do you see my point?
        
        So you agree that migration is a solution for some people?
        I already told you that I plan on moving again, so your point is actually demonstrating my point.
        
        So you'd move to Germany?
        
        If it offered better quality of life than wherever I was at the time then sure.
        
        C'mon, my point is obvious.
        
        You point is confused.
        
        Your original question is idiotic. As I've said, because people don't want to leave their families, culture, etc.
        
        Some do some don't and those that don't obviously don't really care that much then, and life isn't really that bad as they make out. See the pattern there? Why is that tens of millions of people already do this for economic freedom but not the other way around?
        
        You obviously don't understand what democratic socialism is. Democratic socialists believe in freedom of political expression, they just don't believe in free markets. Those are two different things.
        
        I'm guessing you can't see the logical flaw with this statement. How do I get to express myself freely if I can't operate business according to my expression?
        You can't logically have one without the other. This is actually the core of the issue that socialists never seem to be able to grasp.
        
        So it's not because they want to live with their family on the land their ancestors have cultivated, speaking their own language, etc.?
        
        Again, tens of millions of people already make these moves in the interest of a better life, why is it NEVER the other way around?
        
        Yes, it is.
        
        No it's not
        
        You mean like when the state Government wants to build a new highway? Or like ACT's 100 year property leases? The hypocrisy…
        
        Uh… the two examples you just gave were socialist in nature. In a free market you cannot confiscate anything, you have to negotiate terms with the current owner and both agree. Do you even know what a free market is? I think you forgot what your argument was…
        Do you consider confiscation of personal property good or bad?
        
        There is freedom of religion in Bolivia as well. Again, you're confusing free markets with other forms of freedom (political, religious, etc).
        
        The response was a counter to your claims of why don't Catholics all live in Rome. Again you've forgotten your own argument…
        
        I agree with this, hence my reference to Mondragon, but as per above, it's irrelevant to why people don't migrate.
        
        You can't just brush this away because it presents a glaring hole in the argument.
        Why do you think people migrate?
        
        There are lots of reasons other than economic freedom for why people don't want to move, especially when they have political freedom, religious freedom, etc.
        
        True, but when they do move, they never seem to migrate to less free places. Why is that?
        
        Like Bolivia did?
        
        Yeah so why aren't the Bernie Bros moving there? Not even one of them? Sure you can argue that some people have circumstances that make it difficult, but in a world of tens of millions of migrants why are almost all of them moving to freer places and NONE are going the other way?
        
        No, you're interested in measuring national economic growth. Bolivia isn't focused on that.
        
        Covered in the last post. Re-posted here again, this time note all the metrics that aren't just economic: https://www.prosperity.com/globe/bolivia
        
        I agree that centralised economies are inefficient, but you do know that there is market socialism, right? Like Bolivia has?
        
        Yeah we covered this. And the quality of life (including all the non-econmic ones) are still not great either. Let's flip this, what metric do you consider the ideal metric? Environment? They are still doing worse.
        
        Is an issue in Australia, America, etc
        
        True, but much less so, so yet again another 'better' metric: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
        
        See the pattern here?
        
        Bolivia has priorities other than productivity, such as the environment and wealth equity.
        
        Cool, so everyone being equally poor but living among the trees is their thing, this nicely explains why no-one wants to move there. Is this want you want here? Because that will be a hard sell at the polls.
        Also worth noting that their environmental credentials are worse too.
        
        They can, you just continually reject their examples because you refuse to acknowledge that not everybody considers economic productivity as the measure of success.
        
        Already covered…
        Only one example has been provided, Bolivia and it is hardly the poster child of 'places I'd like to live'. And I'm not just using my own metrics here, no-one else seem to want to move there either. I don't, you don't, and neither do tens of millions of every other migrant who decided that somewhere else would be better for them than the Democratic Socialist Utopia of Bolivia
        What else have you got?
        
        You're the type of person of who..
        
        Am I? Is this your party tick, telling people what they're thinking and being wrong about it?
        
        There is reason that all the guitar playing part-time baristas are young. Because eventually they all wake-up one day and realise that this is a dead-end street, just like socialism and all its variants.
        
        besttraveltech on 22/05/2023 - 15:23
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Ok this thread is getting too long to track all the strawmen and non-sequiturs, so I'll condense it a little…
        
        I know you like to cherry pick ;)
        
        Populist doesn't mean 'most popular'.
        
        populist
        noun
        a person who strives to appeal to ordinary people …
        
        If you are a successful populist, then you will be popular. The right-wing coup was not truly populist because the people disregarded them.
        
        There was no right wing in Bolivia during the uprising/coup. There were two warring factions of left wing, including the military who were just trying to keep the peace. The implication of right-wing anything is false.
        
        This is simply wrong… Google "Jeanine Añez"
        
        I provided the metrics, almost all of which were not economic.
        
        And I pointed out that the metrics by which MAS ran their campaign on were trending up and were disproportionate to their economy. C'mon, let's stop going in circles. Raise some new points.
        
        That is not what the word 'proof' means.
        
        proof
        noun
        1.
        evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
        
        They are useful for comparing.
        
        You can't just say that they're useful for comparing and not give a reason why 🤣 Your whole argument misses the point that this is a democratic socialist country, not an authoritarian socialist country. You need to compare like for like.
        
        Interesting deflection… completely inaccurate but sure…
        
        I need to use metaphors to make it easier for you to understand.
        
        Are you making my argument for me? You've just argued why your Lebanon example sucks, because the country was in the midst of a civil war.
        
        Yes, Lebanon was a crap example in the same way that Bolivia was a crap example. That is what I'm trying to show you.
        
        But yes outside of the civil war, many, many people migrated to France, in fact they have so many people coming that it's causing a whole new issue now. Unlike Bolivia.
        
        You can't say "outside of the civil war" (by which you mean the transition to Capitalism and Democracy from Feudalism and Aristocracy) because that's what we're discussing: transition!
        
        We considered many things, all in the link I sent.
        
        Your link didn't consider any of the point I made about family ties, culture, heritage, etc. Your mixing up points.
        
        So you agree that migration is a solution for some people?
        
        I never said it wasn't. My point is that you're being fallacious expecting everyone to migrate based off isolated ideological aspects.
        
        I already told you that I plan on moving again, so your point is actually demonstrating my point.
        
        No, it's not 🤣
        
        If [Germany] offered better quality of life than wherever I was at the time then sure.
        
        You're purposely ignoring the point.
        
        You point is confused.
        
        No, it's not. It's obvious. People don't move to countries just because they have a specific economic model. People care about family ties, land, culture, heritage, language, etc, etc.
        
        Some do some don't and those that don't obviously don't really care that much then, and life isn't really that bad as they make out.
        
        Some do, but you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate to socialist countries. It's like you don't actually believe in political freedom.
        
        I'm guessing you can't see the logical flaw with this statement. How do I get to express myself freely if I can't operate business according to my expression?
        
        You are clearly unable to separate politics, religion, and economics.
        
        Again, tens of millions of people already make these moves in the interest of a better life, why is it NEVER the other way around?
        
        Again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate to socialist countries regardless of family ties, land, culture, heritage, language, etc, etc.
        
        No it's not
        
        Yes, it is.
        
        You mean like when the state Government wants to build a new highway? Or like ACT's 100 year property leases? The hypocrisy…
        
        Uh… the two examples you just gave were socialist in nature.
        
        They were social in nature, not socialist. You clearly don't know the difference.
        
        In a free market you cannot confiscate anything, you have to negotiate terms with the current owner and both agree. Do you even know what a free market is? I think you forgot what your argument was…
        
        Yes, but can you point to a completely free market, or are you going to claim that Australia and America are socialist now? If you're not going to claim that, then address my point.
        
        Do you consider confiscation of personal property good or bad?
        
        I believe the confiscation of personal property is bad, but so do socialists. You mean private property, not personal property. I also believe confiscating private property is bad. I'm not arguing for that though, I'm just pointing out that your arguments are bad. The fact that you don't know the difference between personal and private property should ring an alarm bell that you're the one who does not know what they're talking about.
        
        The response was a counter to your claims of why don't Catholics all live in Rome. Again you've forgotten your own argument…
        
        No, you didn't address my point. I pointed out that Catholics carry their religion with them, just like an ideology (such as socialism) and you deflected.
        
        You can't just brush this away because it presents a glaring hole in the argument. Why do you think people migrate?
        
        What we're discussing isn't why people migrate out of socialist countries, again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate to socialist countries regardless of family ties, land, culture, heritage, language, etc, etc.
        
        True, but when they do move, they never seem to migrate to less free places. Why is that?
        
        Again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate to socialist countries regardless of family ties, land, culture, heritage, language, etc, etc.
        
        Yeah so why aren't the Bernie Bros moving there? Not even one of them? Sure you can argue that some people have circumstances that make it difficult, but in a world of tens of millions of migrants why are almost all of them moving to freer places and NONE are going the other way?
        
        Again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate to socialist countries regardless of family ties, land, culture, heritage, language, etc, etc.
        
        Covered in the last post. Re-posted here again, this time note all the metrics that aren't just economic: https://www.prosperity.com/globe/bolivia
        
        You didn't. Look at Bolivia's metrics for environmental sustainability and personal freedom. What are they compared to their economic position? Actually state the numbers so that I know you've read it, because these are the primary metrics/issues that MAS campaign on.
        
        Yeah we covered this.
        
        You've not once covered market socialism. You were discussing socialism as if it were all centralised.
        
        And the quality of life (including all the non-econmic ones) are still not great either.
        
        From memory, and it's in my memory because I've pointed it out several times now, Personal Freedom and Environmental Sustainability, the issue MAS ran on, are in the 50's while Economics and Enterprise are in the 140's!!!! Again, Bolivia's quality of life far outpaces its economy.
        
        Let's flip this, what metric do you consider the ideal metric? Environment? They are still doing worse.
        
        They're not still doing worse! 🤣 They're 48th in the world for Environmental Sustainability! Of the next 90 countries, at least 80% of them are market economies with private property rights and they're still doing worse than Bolivia.
        
        True, but much less so, so yet again another 'better' metric: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
        
        Cool, so everyone being equally poor but living among the trees is their thing, this nicely explains why no-one wants to move there. Is this want you want here? Because that will be a hard sell at the polls.
        
        No, again, I'm a capitalist. I'm just point out that it's idiotic that you think all the socialists can move there. But it's good to see that you are finally coming around to the idea that others can have different priorities.
        
        Already covered…
        
        No, you didn't. You continually refused to acknowledge the point. Just admit that people can prioritise things different to you and it doesn't mean that their system is worse for them just because you don't like it for yourself.
        
        Only one example has been provided, Bolivia and it is hardly the poster child of 'places I'd like to live'.
        
        Again, no one gives a 💩 where you'd rather live. Bolivians keep choosing to be democratic socialists because they have different lifestyle choices.
        
        Am I?
        
        Yes, you are, as proven by you doubling down in your next couple of sentences.
        
        There is reason that all the guitar playing part-time baristas are young. Because eventually they all wake-up one day and realise that this is a dead-end street, just like socialism and all its variants.
        
        If you think they're all young, you haven't been to Byron Bay… or any monastery that seeks out simple living. You obviously can't empathise with other world views.
        
        A couple books you should really read:
        
        Why not Capitalism?
        This book argues for our belief, Capitalism. Reading this book will make you much better at arguing for it than you have here.
        
        Envisioning Real Utopias
        This book argues for socialism in 4 key ways, most of which I think will be new to you if you still think socialism is inherently centralised (as per a few comments ago). These are the ways in which socialists are arguing in the 2020's. You're arguing against Socialist beliefs from the 90's and earlier.
        
        If you don't read these books, at least put the authors into youtube and watch a few of their talks. I promise you'll make different arguments in the future if you grasp their ideas.
        
        1st-Amendment on 22/05/2023 - 16:42
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        populist
        noun
        a person who strives to appeal to ordinary people …
        
        So you admit you got this wrong. Good on you.
        
        This is simply wrong… Google "Jeanine Añez"
        
        I did, did you? Just because you are right of the far left does not make you right. She even says she's a 'social democrat'. Do you think Lenin was right wing just because he was slightly right of Trotsky?
        
        And I pointed out that the metrics by which MAS ran their campaign on were trending up and were disproportionate to their economy.
        
        And you consider this a good thing? If you spent all of your money and burned your house down but got to live in the garden you'd consider this a win?
        Overall quality of life is down. Is that not a thing in the socialist agenda?
        
        proof
        noun
        evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
        
        So you admit you got this wrong. Bravo.
        Just claiming something to be true isn't a proof.
        
        and not give a reason why
        
        I did, you missed it.
        
        Your whole argument misses the point that this is a democratic socialist country, not an authoritarian socialist country. You need to compare like for like.
        
        I did, you missed it.
        
        Yes, Lebanon was a crap example in the same way that Bolivia was a crap example. That is what I'm trying to show you.
        
        Cool so we agree that Bolivia isn't a great place to live. Now let's go back to the very first post I responded to when I asked for an example of where 'it' (whatever you want to call it) works.
        
        Feel free to post example here:
        .
        .
        space here left for your to post an example
        .
        .
        
        that's what we're discussing: transition!
        
        A 30 year transition? How long does it take? Germany and China didn't need 30 years, why does this?
        Me personally I don;t have 30 years to throw away on an unproven experiment, so you'll need something better than that.
        
        Your link didn't consider any of the point I made about family ties, culture, heritage, etc.
        
        I did, you missed it.
        
        I never said it wasn't. My point is that you're being fallacious expecting everyone to migrate based off isolated ideological aspects.
        
        Strawman. At no point did I every say everyone, in fact I specifically asked for one single example, multiple times. Where are these one or two examples?
        
        but you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate
        
        See above…
        
        you're saying **all* who support
        
        See above…
        
        They were social in nature, not socialist. You clearly don't know the difference.
        
        Ok we're moving into full retard mode now…
        
        I believe the confiscation of personal property is bad, but so do socialists. I'm just pointing out that your arguments are bad. The fact that you don't know the difference between personal and private property should ring an alarm bell that you're the one who does not know what they're talking about.
        
        Definitely full retard mode now…
        
        again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Me: Yeah so why aren't the Bernie Bros moving there? Not even one of them?
        
        You: "Again, you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate"
        
        What is reading…
        Does the word 'one' mean anything to you?
        
        Look at Bolivia's metrics for environmental sustainability and personal freedom. What are they compared to their economic position?
        
        Lol. Ok here goes. 48th and 79th respectively, both much worse than most western capitalist nations. So how did that work out for you?
        
        You've not once covered market socialism. You were discussing socialism as if it were all centralised.
        
        I asked for examples and Bolivia is the only one presented so far.
        
        From memory, the issue MAS ran on, are in the 50's while Economics and Enterprise are in the 140's!!!! Again, Bolivia's quality of life far outpaces its economy.
        
        So you argument is that becasue one is slightly less shit than then other then overall it's better than say Australia? This is your argument? Are you on drugs?
        Do you think the quality of life is better or worse than the 50 nations ahead of it? Why would you replace a system that is clearly delivering better results in Australia with one than is clearly more shit?
        
        They're 48th in the world for Environmental Sustainability!
        
        Cool, Austrlaia is 19th. Is 19th better than 48th? Pretty sure it is.
        
        No, again, I'm a capitalist. I'm just point out that it's idiotic that you think all the socialists can move there.
        
        It looks like you entire argument is built on a false premise repeated ad infinitum
        I'll repeat it again since you clearly missed it the first two times I specifically mentioned this. I'm asking for examples of ANYONE moving there, not EVERYONE. In a world of a hundreds of millions of migrants, you can't find even one or two examples?
        
        If you think they're all young, you haven't been to Byron Bay…
        
        Lol clearly you haven't. I have friends who live there and visit multiple times a year. Average house prices are up over $3M now. It's all cashed up Bondi millionaire hipsters there now. All their money they made in Sydney and Melbourne they used to buy out the hippies who are now crying that their guitar playing barista jobs won't pay the rent.
        
        or any monastery that seeks out simple living.
        
        The monks in the monastery are doing exactly like I suggested. They are living the life they believe is better by moving there, not trying to take over here. Think about your analogies just a little bit…
        
        You obviously can't empathise with other world views.
        
        This is common comeback from lefties that don't understand how the world works. What is more empathetic. A system that has understands the challenges required, but delivers the best outcomes, or the system built purely on good intentions that objectively delivers worse outcomes?
        
        A couple books you should really read:
        
        I'll check them out because I'm always interested in new ideas. However just because they sound new to you doesn't mean they are new to me. Every time someone says 'this version of socialism is different' it turns out to be the same steaming pile of dogshit idea wrapped up in a new ribbon. I followed Bernie Sanders, they guy couldn't even live his own philosophy yet expected everyone else to, just like every other socialist in history. So hopefully it's something better than that.
        
        To summarise this conversation it boils down to two key points:
        
        Show me example of where 'the new great idea' is working and delivering results. Bolivia was the only suggested example but it turns out not to be good one.
        
        Once this new great place is provided, the ultimate objective test of 'better' is that people will move there, since it is better. NOTE: not EVERYONE in the whole world will move, just someone somewhere will. If it's objectively better then some people will move there. Surely you acknowledge this?
        
        I promise you'll make different arguments in the future if you grasp their ideas.
        
        I doubt it, since this argument has turned out pretty much the same as all the others. But I'll happily check them out.
        
        besttraveltech on 22/05/2023 - 17:44
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Good on you.
        
        I'm pointing out that successful populism would be backed by popular support.
        
        I did, did you? Just because you are right of the far left does not make you right. She even says she's a 'social democrat'. Do you think Lenin was right wing just because he was slightly right of Trotsky?
        
        The fact that she's left of you is irrelevant. She, and the military, are to the right of the party/Government that was the victim of a coup. That's what's relevant.
        
        And I pointed out that the metrics by which MAS ran their campaign on were trending up and were disproportionate to their economy.
        
        And you consider this a good thing?
        
        How have you still not realised that it doesn't matter what we think? It matters what's important to the people of Bolivia.
        
        So you admit you got this wrong. Bravo.
        
        Nope, I just provided proof that I was right. That definition of proof was proof. Get it? ;)
        
        I did, you missed it.
        
        No, you didn't. Feel free to state it again if you're so confident and I'll show you again why you didn't.
        
        Cool so we agree that Bolivia isn't a great place to live.
        
        Nor is Lebanon, a Capitalist country.
        
        Now let's go back to the very first post I responded to when I asked for an example of where 'it' (whatever you want to call it) works.
        
        It does work in Bolivia. Just because we don't want to live there doesn't mean it doesn't work. That's like saying a horse doesn't work well because it's not as fast as a car. We've been over this.
        
        A 30 year transition? How long does it take?
        
        How long do you think the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism took?
        
        Germany and China didn't need 30 years, why does this?
        
        The same reason we could take a failing Capitalist society back to Feudalism much quicker than we can fix its Capitalist economy.
        
        Me personally I don;t have 30 years to throw away on an unproven experiment, so you'll need something better than that.
        
        Too bad, you're in one.
        
        I did, you missed it.
        
        No, you didn't. Highlight the part where you addressed family ties.
        
        Strawman. At no point did I every say everyone
        
        Lies. *"why don't all the Bernie Bros move there"
        
        but you're saying **all* who support socialism should go migrate
        
        See above…
        
        See above…
        
        See above…
        
        See above…
        
        Ok we're moving into full retard mode now…
        
        You always were. It's not my fault you don't know the difference between social policies and socialism. Social policies are policies for social reform, which can be held Capitalist governments (and are, by every single one). Socialism is when the working class owns the means of production.
        
        Definitely full retard mode now…
        
        Yes, because you don't understand the difference between personal property (e.g. your clothes) and private property (e.g. a factory).
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        If you want an example of just one, then there are plenty of socialists that move from Capitalist countries to Socialist countries. There was that George guy. George Or….something. 🤣
        
        Lol. Ok here goes. 48th and 79th respectively, both much worse than most western capitalist nations. So how did that work out for you?
        
        Great, because they're still outperforming well over half of the Capitalist countries. Note how you had to put "Western" before "Capitalist". That should tell you something - you're cherry picking your Capitalist countries.
        
        I asked for examples and Bolivia is the only one presented so far.
        
        What's your point? You still haven't addressed market socialism even though I've brought it up multiple times.
        
        Even with the one market socialist example I gave, Bolivia, you were discussing as if it were centralised. I quote:
        
        "greater centralised control invariably ends up with more inefficiency"
        
        That point is irrelevant when discussing a market socialist country, In fact, it could easily be argued that monopolies, such as Apple with its closed ecosystems, in Capitalist countries can lead to more centralisation and less competition than in a market economy such as Bolivia's.
        
        From memory, the issue MAS ran on, are in the 50's while Economics and Enterprise are in the 140's!!!! Again, Bolivia's quality of life far outpaces its economy.
        
        ^ This what I said.
        
        So you argument is that becasue one is slightly less shit than then other then overall it's better than say Australia? This is your argument? Are you on drugs?
        
        ^ This is your strawman.
        
        No, I'm saying that Bolivia's quality of life is outperforming its economy in ways most capitalist nations on that list are not.
        
        Do you think the quality of life is better or worse than the 50 nations ahead of it?
        
        I think its quality of life is better than the ~100 capitalist countries below it. 🍒
        
        Why would you replace a system that is clearly delivering better results in Australia with one than is clearly more shit?
        
        I think the people of Bolivia, as evidenced by consecutive elections (even after a coup), are happy with their quality of life outperforming that of roughly ~50 Capilist countries with better economies on many metrics. 🍒
        
        Cool, Austrlaia is 19th. Is 19th better than 48th? Pretty sure it is.
        
        Cool. And there are 100 Capitalist countries below Bolivia. 🍒
        
        It looks like you entire argument is built on a false premise repeated ad infinitum
        I'll repeat it again since you clearly missed it the first two times I specifically mentioned this. I'm asking for examples of ANYONE moving there, not EVERYONE. In a world of a hundreds of millions of migrants, you can't find even one or two examples?
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        Lol clearly you haven't.
        
        I have "Travel" in my username…
        
        It's all cashed up Bondi millionaire hipsters there now. All their money they made in Sydney and Melbourne they used to buy out the hippies who are now crying that their guitar playing barista jobs won't pay the rent.
        
        Nope. There are a lot of yuppies, but the Northern Rivers is still crawling with hippies. Who do you think is making the yuppies their lattes? And why do yuppies feel the need to emulat hippies if they're so fulfilled with their $30m mansions?
        
        The monks in the monastery are doing exactly like I suggested. They are living the life they believe is better by moving there, not trying to take over here.
        
        That's irrelevant to the point of my analogy. The point of my analogy is that people can prioritise different things in life, and that you shouldn't measure someone else's success by your personal metrics and views of success for yourself.
        
        In the same way that you shouldn't judge a monk for not choosing to buy a car, you shouldn't judge Bolivians for not choosing your economic method. Different strokes.
        
        This is common comeback from lefties that don't understand how the world works.
        
        It's not a comeback from a leftie tho ;)
        
        What is more empathetic. A system that has understands the challenges required, but delivers the best outcomes, or the system built purely on good intentions that objectively delivers worse outcomes?
        
        Loaded question. You're again measuring by YOUR metrics. What you think is the best outcome might not (and clearly isn't) the same as people who live on another continent, with another language, thousands of years of different history.
        
        I'll check them out because I'm always interested in new ideas. However just because they sound new to you doesn't mean they are new to me.
        
        They're not new to me - I've read them. I know they're new to you because you wouldn't have said much of what you've said, such as assuming Bolivia's economy was centralised because it's socialist, if you had already read them. You just said that you would check them out, so you have proven me correct in that assumption.
        
        Every time someone says 'this version of socialism is different' it turns out to be the same steaming pile of dogshit idea wrapped up in a new ribbon.
        
        Yes, the Ukranian Black Army was just like the Soviety Red Army 🤣
        
        I followed Bernie Sanders, they guy couldn't even live his own philosophy yet expected everyone else to, just like every other socialist in history. So hopefully it's something better than that.
        
        Yes, Bernie is another champagne socialist. I also dislike him.
        
        To summarise this conversation it boils down to two key points:
        
        I disagree with your summary, obviously, and find it to be a strawman.
        
        Show me example of where 'the new great idea' is working and delivering results. Bolivia was the only suggested example but it turns out not to be good one.
        
        It's working in Bolivia. Just because you don't want to live there doesn't mean it's not working. Horses work even though they're slower than cars.
        
        If you want non-state examples, there are plenty. Have a look at the socialist book I suggested (Envisioning Utopias) for several examples, such as Mondragon in Spain.
        
        Once this new great place is provided, the ultimate objective test of 'better' is that people will move there, since it is better.
        
        That's a BS metric you made up, but even by that metric, Bolivia has a migrant population of 150,000.
        
        If it's objectively better then some people will move there. Surely you acknowledge this?
        
        There is no "objectively better" country to live in and I've never argued such. All I've done is provide an example of functioning democratic socialism. I've never even said that democratic socialism is better than capitalism (I've pointed out several times that I am a capitalist). That being said, Bolivia outperforms many capitalist countries on the source you provided.
        
        I doubt [I will make better arguments] since this argument has turned out pretty much the same as all the others. But I'll happily check them out.
        
        At the very least you won't assume a socialist country has a centralised economy, that socialists nationalise personal (as opposed to private) property, etc.
        
        1st-Amendment on 22/05/2023 - 20:00
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        Just because we don't want to live there doesn't mean it doesn't work.
        
        This is the campaign slogan of all socialists. Lol.
        
        "I'd never live there, but we should replicate what they've done here because it's 'better' somehow'.
        
        It's clear that this conversation is going nowhere so I'll try to summarise the key points and wrap up:
        
        Have a look at the socialist book I suggested (Envisioning Utopias)
        
        I looked up Erik Olin Wright, watched a couple of videos and as expected it's the same old pie-in-the-sky socialist shit sandwich.
        Here's one with a paltry 13k views and the comments aren't very encouraging either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHJoaOmA44I
        
        eg "Class relations perpetuate eliminable forms of human suffering."
        
        Yawn, just more Marxism
        
        "creating a more equitable and just society"
        
        Yawn
        
        "advocate for collective decision-making and the involvement of diverse perspectives in shaping alternative social structures"
        
        Yawn, it's all just the same old stuff. ..
        
        I know they're new to you because you wouldn't have said much of what you've said
        
        Nope. I just read some excepts of the book and it's exactly as expected. The same class war shit sandwich wrapped up in a slightly different bow.
        So I standby everything I said.
        
        That's a BS metric you made up
        
        Just saying stuff doesn't make it true, you keep making that mistake. Migration is the best metric there is for judging whether other people are satisfied with their living conditions. People vote with their feet so if there are a lot of people going one way it is a great indicator that those people perceive where they are going as being 'better' than where they are from. Do you know anyone who purposefully leaves their friends and family to go live somewhere worse than where they are? This makes no sense.
        
        If you need a closer example, look at Australia and NZ, two wealthy capitalist nations. Australia has higher standards of living, higher pay rates and lower costs of living, so it's no surprise that there are 600k Kiwis now living here 12% of the NZ population! The Albanese gov has just opened up the citizenship pathways starting July 1 so it's a no-brainer to predict what happens next. People move to places they perceive as being better. If you have a better metric than this than feel free to share it. But just because this metric blows your argument up, it doesn't make it false.
        
        So I'll leave you with this becasue deep down you know you that the socialist position has no answer to it:
        
        The simple 2 point test of which systems work better:
        
        Give an example of where 'the new great idea' is already working and delivering results that you would want to live under.
        
        Once this new great place is provided, the ultimate objective test of 'better' is that it will result in positive migration, since if it is better, more people will move there than leave. Does this Utopia have a significantly positive net migration?
        
        If we apply this simple test to the top 20 nations they all pass. If we apply it to any socialist one they all fail. Can you join the dots?
        
        besttraveltech on 22/05/2023 - 21:01
        
        @1st-Amendment: I see you've ignored the vast majority of my response… So be it.
        
        "I'd never live there, but we should replicate what they've done here because it's 'better' somehow'.
        
        The Bolivian democratic socialists want to live there.
        
        Yawn, it's all just the same old stuff. ..
        
        Yes, because you are back to 🍒 picking. This time, vague quotes that you got from googling for a summary.
        
        UBI's, for example, aren't the "same old stuff". Relative to the century-old, centralised economies you were discussing (and are clearly still thinking of by repeatedly claiming "Marxism!!!"), UBI's are very recent. More recent than the fall of the Soviet Union. Similar for solidarity funds.
        
        Both of which can operate within a wider Capitalist society, as is pointed out in Why Not Capitalism? If they were Marxist then that would not be the case because Marx believes in a dictatorship of the proletariat seizing the means of production.
        
        Just saying stuff doesn't make it true
        
        Exactly, just making up a metric doesn't make it true. Even if your metric proved Bolivia was a bad place to live because it has a negligible net migration, that isn't an argument against democratic socialism. Again, there are many more capitalist nations that are much worse off than Bolivia, including by your made-up metric.
        
        Give an example of where 'the new great idea' is already working and delivering results that you would want to live under.
        
        This is nonsense. Again, it doesn't matter where I'd want to live and, again, I'm not a socialist. It only matters whether Bolivians are happy with their [ath. They overwhelmingly keep voting for it, so I guess they are.
        
        Once this new great place is provided, the ultimate objective test of 'better' is that it will result in positive migration, since if it is better, more people will move there than leave. Does this Utopia have a significantly positive net migration?
        
        Broken record. See above.
        
        1st-Amendment on 23/05/2023 - 13:39
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        UBI's, for example, aren't the "same old stuff".
        
        Lol. Read and learn…
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#History
        
        This comment show how little you know about 'the cool new idea'. It's still just the same old shit sandwich with a different ribbon
        
        More recent than the fall of the Soviet Union
        
        Pretty sure the Romans, Thomas Moore, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell and LBJ were all around long before that. You might need to brush up on your expert subject matter as you're starting to sound ignorant.
        
        repeatedly claiming "Marxism"
        
        The guy YOU referred me too is a self proclaimed Marxist lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Olin_Wright
        
        and I quoted him regurgitating the same old Marxist cliches of class struggle…
        
        Do you know what words mean?
        
        because Marx believes in a dictatorship
        
        Does he? Where specifically: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m…
        The more you comment the more you reveal your stereotypical ignorant Bernie Bro rhetoric…
        
        just making up a metric doesn't make it true
        
        Just saying it's not true doesn't make it so either. Do you know how that works?
        
        It only matters whether Bolivians are happy
        
        So much for 'just making up a metric doesn't make it true'. You forgot you're own rule in the space of about 10 seconds…
        
        A populist uprising/military coup would suggest that they aren't happy. But when your entire argument is 'is not' then there's not much I can add.
        
        I'm done talking to a brick. Here's a tip for you though, you don't even have to move to Bolivia to get a taste of the 'success', just go visit for holiday then come back and tell me what you think of 'the great new idea'.
        
        besttraveltech on 29/05/2023 - 08:21
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Lol. Read and learn… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#History
        
        Did you actually read it? Romans giving a once-off of 100 Denari isn't a UBI. Next you'll tell me that the English language has been around for thousands of years then reference a Wikipedia page on the history of the English language which discusses the Latin and Germanic origin. C'mon mate.
        
        The guy YOU referred me too is a self proclaimed Marxist lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Olin_Wright
        
        The author is a Marxist, but the topics he discusses in the book are not Marxist. Marx was a communist who believed in the proletariat seizing the means of production and installing a dictatorship before evolving into communism. The topics discussed in the book are social in nature, but aren't not communist lol. The whole point of the book, as per the title, are solutions that the author thinks are realistic (in capitalist countries, in our lifetimes, should you actually read the book). The book is, therefore, explicitly not about achieving actual Marxist communism.
        
        and I quoted him regurgitating the same old Marxist cliches of class struggle…
        
        The socialist theory of class conflict predates Marx, Marx is just the most well-known proponent of it. Every socialist believes in class conflict. Lots of non-Marxists believe in the topics discussed. Andrew Yang is a capitalist, former presidential candidate, and proponent of UBI (a real one, not a 100 denari one-time payment. If that's your metric, we already live in a UBI. And if you think a UBI is Marxist, then Australia must already be communist! 🤣)
        
        Does [Marx believe in a dictatorship]? Where specifically?
        
        So you've never heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat but you think you can lecture people on what is and isn't Marxism? LOL
        
        Just saying it's not true doesn't make it so either. Do you know how that works?
        
        Yes, I do understand how it works. You're the proponent of this irrelevant metric that you pulled out of your arse therefore you also hold the burden of proof that it is a sole objective metric.
        
        So much for 'just making up a metric doesn't make it true'. You forgot you're own rule in the space of about 10 seconds…
        
        No, it does only matter that the Bolivians are happy with the Bolivian government. This isn't a random metric I've pulled out of my arse, this is a system called Democracy. Have you heard of it?
        
        A populist uprising/military coup would suggest that they aren't happy. But when your entire argument is 'is not' then there's not much I can add.
        
        Again, it wasn't successfully populist because the same party was voted back in during the very next election. Elections have long been the metric by which a democracy measures who is the preferred party. I'm not proposing anything new here…
        
        I'm done talking to a brick. Here's a tip for you though, you don't even have to move to Bolivia to get a taste of the 'success', just go visit for holiday then come back and tell me what you think of 'the great new idea'.
        
        I've visited many socialist countries and capitalist countries. There's not a huge difference between Vietnam and the Philippines. Which reminds me to check the source YOU provided. Oh interesting, Vietnam is at 73 while the Philippines is at 84…
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/05/2023 - 11:27
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        The author is a Marxist, but the topics he discusses in the book are not Marxist…
        it does only matter that the Bolivians are happy with the Bolivian government…
        proof that it is a sole objective metric…
        it wasn't successfully populist because…
        Vietnam is at 73 while the Philippines is at 84…
        
        The mental gymnastics here is fun to watch, but nothing you have said supports your initial claim that " Bolivia is a successful democratic socialist state" You tried your best, your participation medal is in the mail…
        
        besttraveltech on 29/05/2023 - 12:29
        
        @1st-Amendment: Cop out response, can't actually address my points. That's fine by me ;)
        
        nothing you have said supports your initial claim
        
        Yes, because you kept going down rabbit holes that I would have to educate you on. It's your fault that you don't know the difference between Marxism and Democratic Socialism, not mine.
        
        Bolivia is a successful democratic socialist state
        
        It is though.
        
        "Under the 2006–2019 presidency of Evo Morales the country saw significant economic growth and political stability."
        
        Since (repeatedly) electing a democratic socialist government, the country "has slashed poverty rates and has the fastest growing economy in South America".
        
        The fact is: Bolivia is a successful state. It has a growing economy, growing population, etc. It's also democratic and socialist. Successful state + democratic + socialist = successful democratic socialist state.
        
        If you think Bolivia is a failed state, please go ahead and address all of my above points, including other failed capitalist states, such as my specific example of the Philippines, who ranks lower on the source you provided.
        
        But I also don't think you even understand what a failed state is.
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/05/2023 - 12:48
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        If you think Bolivia is a failed state,
        
        Another strawman… yawn…
        
        While I wouldn't want to live there
        
        Lol…
        
        besttraveltech on 29/05/2023 - 13:04
        
        @1st-Amendment: Wow, you've really just given up 🤣
        
        Another strawman
        
        How's it a strawman? I'm asking you to be consistent in what you consider to be a "failed state", which is pretty generous of me, since the definition of "failed state" that you're using isn't the real definition:
        
        failed state
        noun
        a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control
        
        Whereas you're making an actual strawman by acting like us not wanting to live in a country, or that it has negative net migration, makes it a "failed state", a definition and metric you've pulled out of your arse.
        
        Which, again, even using your definition and metrics, puts Bolivia in company with a whole lot of Capitalist countries that you conveniently ignore such as the Philippines (which you can closely compare to Vietnam in Asia) and neighbouring Peru.
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/05/2023 - 17:41
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        How's it a strawman?
        
        It was kind of obvious, but here you are…
        
        "If you think Bolivia is a failed state"
        
        "understand what a failed state is."
        
        "you consider to be a "failed state""
        
        "the definition of "failed state" "
        
        "failed state"
        
        "makes it a "failed state""
        
        You spent so much time and effort refuting your own invention.. it truly is comical to watch…
        
        besttraveltech on 29/05/2023 - 18:20
        
        @1st-Amendment: All you did was copy and paste stuff about a failed state. You've clearly given up the argument.
        
        You said that there isn't a successful demsoc state. If you think Bolivia, a demsoc state, isn't successful, then you must think it's a failed state. This is basic logic. 2+2=4, but you're trying to make it 5. Ironic.
        
        So, again:
        
        "Under the 2006–2019 presidency of Evo Morales the country saw significant economic growth and political stability."
        
        Since (repeatedly) electing a democratic socialist government, the country "has slashed poverty rates and has the fastest growing economy in South America".
        
        The fact is: Bolivia is a successful state. It has a growing economy, growing population, etc. It's also democratic and socialist. Successful state + democratic + socialist = successful democratic socialist state.
        
        If you disagree and think Bolivia is a failed state, please go ahead and address all of my above points, including other failed capitalist states, such as my specific example of the Philippines, who ranks lower on the source you provided.
        
        failed state
        noun
        a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/05/2023 - 18:53
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        All you did was copy and paste stuff about a failed state
        
        I feel like I'm explaining things to a child…
        
        You asked where the strawman was I gave you 7 examples. Despite this you failed to grasp the obvious and then continued pursuing your strawman with even more vigour. It's clear that you are out of your depth here.
        
        If you think Bolivia, a demsoc state, isn't successful, then you must think it's a failed state
        
        Lol, what is logic…
        
        This is basic logic
        
        It's actually not, but it's hilarious to see you act so confident while struggling with the basics.
        
        The logical fallacy you committed here is commonly known as False Dilemma. You can learn about it where you went wrong here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
        
        besttraveltech on 30/05/2023 - 20:02
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        I feel like I'm explaining things to a child…
        
        Mate, I've been explaining concepts to you this entire time. You've taught me nothing.
        
        You asked where the strawman was I gave you 7 examples.
        
        Literally none of them are strawmen. You said Bolivia isn't a successful demsoc state. The opposite of success is failure, surely you know this.
        
        Lol, what is logic…
        
        Do you recognise that Bolivia is democratic socialist, yes or no? Do you think Bolivia is a successful state, yes or no?
        
        It's actually not [basic logic]
        
        It is to me, but at least you have admitted it's not for you.
        
        The logical fallacy you committed here is commonly known as False Dilemma.
        
        It's not a false dilemma though, it's an actual dilemma that you've gotten yourself into and you're refusing to answer.
        
        Do you recognise that Bolivia is democratic socialist, yes or no? Do you think Bolivia is a successful state, yes or no?
        
        failed state
        noun
        a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control
        
        1st-Amendment on 31/05/2023 - 09:08
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        Mate, I've been explaining concepts to you this entire time
        
        Lol you've been vomiting the same old verbal diarrhea we hear every time from ignorant socialists… then lack the basic IQ to work out what the fundamentals of logic are…
        
        The opposite of success is failure, surely you know this.
        
        I gave you the actual definition of the false dilemma logical fallacy and you still fail to grasp it. Very low IQ, this is getting embarrassing…
        
        It is to me
        
        Which is not how logic works unfortunately. Facts don't care about your feelings…
        
        failed state
        
        Lol still with the strawman…
        Your entire position is based on a strawman backed up by a false dilemma. And even though I pointed out these logical flaws you continue persist with them like a typical lefty bot. Truly remarkable mental gymnastics, the exact kind required to support socialism while living under the peace and prosperity that only capitalism provides. Enjoy your class struggle comrade, and while shouting 'Socialism!' you'll still happily participate in all the benefits provided to you by the wonderful capitalist system we all enjoy here at OZbargain.
        
        besttraveltech on 31/05/2023 - 09:42
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        same old verbal diarrhea we hear every time from ignorant socialists… then lack the basic IQ to work
        
        I'm giving you sources that are literal professors. People who are respected by the most successful Capitalist thinkers of our time, even if they disagree with them. If you think they "lack the basic IQ" maybe it's just because they're beyond you.
        
        I gave you the actual definition of the false dilemma logical fallacy
        
        Because it's not a false dilemma. For it to be a false dilemma there must be a false premise. I keep asking you to show the false premise but you cannot. To reiterate, my premises are:
        
        P1) Bolivia is a democratic socialist state
        
        P2) Bolivia has not failed as a state
        
        C) Bolivia is a successful democratic socialist state
        
        If it's a false dilemma, you must point out what's wrong with either P1 or P2. I've asked you to repeatedly, but you have not, because you cannot.
        
        Enjoy your class struggle comrade, and while shouting 'Socialism!' you'll still happily participate in all the benefits provided to you by the wonderful capitalist system we all enjoy here at OZbargain.
        
        You keep forgetting that I'm a capitalist. It's like your brain can't handle the fact that my problem is with your fallacious arguments, not with economic preference.
        
        If you don't answer these questions it's because you can't. You know you're cornered, so all I need to do is keeping asking these questions and the longer you ignore them (by screaming "false dilemma!" then not showing which premise is false) the longer you will appear to be either intellectually dishonest or just… not intellectual at all.
        
        Do you recognise that Bolivia is democratic socialist, yes or no?
        
        Do you think Bolivia is a successful state, yes or no?
        
        failed state
        noun
        a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control
        
        1st-Amendment on 31/05/2023 - 10:08
        
        @besttraveltech:
        
        For it to be a false dilemma there must be a false premise
        
        Yeah and I already spelled that out to you in very simple terms, yet here we are.
        
        Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. Here is your false premise:
        
        If you think Bolivia isn't successful, then you must think it's a failed state
        
        Your false premise is that there are only two options.
        
        Enjoy your low IQ life, I'm done explaining things to children who can't grasp simple concepts…
        
        besttraveltech on 31/05/2023 - 10:38
        
        @1st-Amendment: Now we're getting somewhere!
        
        Yeah and I already spelled that out to you
        
        Lmao, first off, this is the first time that you've addressed what you think is the false premise. There is no "already".
        
        Your false premise is that there are only two options.
        
        Yes, there are only two options. A state is either functioning or it is not.
        
        There may be a spectrum of functionality-anarchy, but Bolivia is definitely on the functioning side of that spectrum, given that it meets every metric of a functioning state (there is law enforcement, tax collection, infrastructure construction, maintenance of a military, etc, etc). Typically, once a state has truly failed it is usually extremely obvious, like when the Taliban wiped out the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or when the USSR collapsed.
        
        Furthermore, as I have "already spelled out to you in very simple terms", there are many Capitalist states that are functioning far worse / are far more fragile than democratic-socialist Bolivia. Again, the Philippines is a great example. Bolivia's regional neighbours of Colombia, Honduras, and Brazil are all capitalist and are all ranked to be more fragile/less functioning than Bolivia.
        
        If you think Bolivia isn't successful, then you must reconcile this stance with these more numerous Capitalist states.
        
        I'm done explaining things
        
        You've barely started. Now that you've actually pointed out a premise you disagree with (which I believe is a thinly veiled attempt to move the goal post, but I'm enjoying it anyway), you must clarify your premise.
        
        If there are more options other than successful, then you must clarify what are those options? Don't forget to include some options that allow you to weasel your way out of the above Capitalist states that are struggling more than Bolivia.
        
        Also, try and back it up with something that experts would recognise, not some nonsense metric you pulled out of your arse about migration (not that it will solve your predicament with the above countries anyway - Capitalist Colombia's net migration is almost 10 times worse than Bolivia's, LOL).
        
        Don't forget that you still haven't answer these questions so that I can steel man your position. Answering the questions doesn't stop you from addressing your problem with Premise 2 being too binary for you (just like gender, I assume).
        
        Do you recognise that Bolivia is democratic socialist, yes or no?
        
        Do you think Bolivia is a successful state, yes or no?
        
        failed state
        noun
        a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control
        
        besttraveltech on 02/06/2023 - 09:46
        
        @1st-Amendment: Thanks for the discussion 😘
AircraftFreight on 18/05/2023 - 08:06

+9

Bracing for the comments (good read though)
killingtime on 18/05/2023 - 08:07

+17

No offense to poster but all of this author's books are out of copyright now, so they will always be free.
- beebul on 18/05/2023 - 08:15
  
  +7
  
  I think it's just the convenience of being able to click and have it on your Kindle
  - Ham Dragon on 18/05/2023 - 08:35
    
    +1
    
    I had that liberty also, until zLibrary got squashed ☹️
- AustriaBargain on 18/05/2023 - 12:37
  
  -1
  
  If they are in the public domain someone should publish it with a happy ending.
EightImmortals on 18/05/2023 - 08:09

+7

Too soon?

..or irrelevant now that we're living it?
- Ham Dragon on 18/05/2023 - 08:36
  
  +15
  
  Sometimes it feels like this reality is just an AI chatbot's interpretation of "create a society based on the writings of George Orwell".
  - kevst on 18/05/2023 - 12:59
    
    +2
    
    We live in Brave New World - Where large corps try to tell us how to feel and think.
    
    People in authoritarian countries live on the Animal Farm.
    
    Get your dystopias right!
    
    K
    - mantichoral on 18/05/2023 - 22:24
      
      +1
      
      https://www.openculture.com/2022/06/aldous-huxley-george-orw…
Budju on 18/05/2023 - 08:22

Thanks
studentl0an on 18/05/2023 - 08:25

+33

All Daniel Andrews are equal.. but some Daniel Andrews are more equal than others.
- Sammyboy on 18/05/2023 - 08:28
  
  +1
  
  lol
- EightImmortals on 18/05/2023 - 08:51
  
  +6
  
  Oink!
- ConsumerAffairs on 18/05/2023 - 09:22
  
  Some even put their farrow as the heads of the Stable, Sty, Barn and even the Paddocks
MagicTsukai on 18/05/2023 - 08:39

+2

4 legs good
- Deviant88 on 18/05/2023 - 08:45
  
  +12
  
  5 IBAC's bad.
mantichoral on 18/05/2023 - 09:06

+2

How is this a deal when the text has been freely available on Project Gutenberg for years?

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011h.html
- brendanm on 18/05/2023 - 11:16
  
  +1
  
  Op trying to be popular by posting as many things as possible.
RolandWaites on 18/05/2023 - 09:22

+28

1/5. Terrible farming handbook. Livestock chased me off the estate.
- AustriaBargain on 18/05/2023 - 12:39
  
  +1
  
  2/5. Terrible children's book. My kids are now scared of the bourgeoisie.
  - cyssero on 18/05/2023 - 18:06
    
    +4
    
    2.5/5 - Interesting concepts, but Orwell is just a shill for Big Farmer
    - Wally on 18/05/2023 - 18:51
      
      People enjoy streaming 'Clarkson's Farm' without realizing he got his start in life via his parents gleaning their wealth off the back of Paddington Bear! 😛
    - juki on 18/05/2023 - 22:36
      
      take my upvote for the nice pun :)
      
      I would say its my favourite book from orwell even if the concepts are a little dated
      next i rather his accounts of roaming paris and only then 1984 which i didnt like all that much (i had trouble understanding it as a teen, many other classical authors way better to read)
RolandWaites on 18/05/2023 - 09:23 Comment score below threshold.
- ConsumerAffairs on 18/05/2023 - 09:27
  
  +2
  
  Clearly you can't read between the lines and plus, nobody has even said that. Op should have put a trigger warning on the post for you
audreamer on 18/05/2023 - 09:27

+14

FYI, the book 1984 from the same author George Orwell is also free:

https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B0C5FPKL2Q/
- ConsumerAffairs on 18/05/2023 - 10:14
  
  +1
  
  US link
  
  https://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B0C5FPKL2…
- Munki on 18/05/2023 - 10:57
  
  +1
  
  I'm still waiting for the sequel: 1985.
  - mantichoral on 18/05/2023 - 22:20
    
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_(Burgess_novel)
- juki on 18/05/2023 - 11:00
  
  that choice of cover….
  
  I prefer animal farm over 1984, there was even an old cartoon made of the book but even back then the visuals were horrible i cant imagine today's kids watching that.
  - syousef on 18/05/2023 - 11:08
    
    Yeah no more watching the video instead of reading the book. Kids these days will ask ChatGPT for the synopsis.
    - juki on 18/05/2023 - 22:33
      
      you can do both, sometimes watching the movie will make you want to read the book.
      
      its not because you dont watch the movie that you will read the book, people who dont read simply dont read.
      
      I cant comment on chat gpt, I'm old and not so interested in IT stuff
  - rokufan on 18/05/2023 - 23:50
    
    The animated Animal Farm movie is a classic, it is still played in class at schools.
    - juki on 19/05/2023 - 18:53
      
      i remember it as shouty and scary
- 9310751 on 18/05/2023 - 12:12
  
  +1
  
  Thanks!
  
  UK link
  
  https://www.amazon.co.uk/1984-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B0C5FPK…
- AustriaBargain on 18/05/2023 - 12:39
  
  OP must have put that book in the memory hole..
puzzles2 on 18/05/2023 - 11:42

Just got a Kindle, how do I add these ebooks to my account? The only $0 option I can see is audible with a free trial.

It says this title is not currently available for purchase.
- besttraveltech on 18/05/2023 - 12:42
  
  When logged in to Amazon, select Kindle as the option, then click Buy Now.
  - puzzles2 on 18/05/2023 - 12:52
    
    Wonder if my account has some setting that's wrong then as I can't see the Kindle option.
    - cryptowiz on 18/05/2023 - 15:40
      
      Are you trying to buy this from your Kindle? Use the Australian (AU) link shown above on your PC, Mac or tablet and follow @besttraveltech's instruction just above this comment.
  - mantichoral on 18/05/2023 - 22:22
    
    it's not worth it, they'll just remove it again. The Gutenberg extext of 1984 doesn't have that problem.
    
    https://www.theregister.com/2009/07/18/amazon_removes_1984_f…
besttraveltech on 18/05/2023 - 12:40

Vegan Propaganda!
Vool on 18/05/2023 - 13:23

+2

If anyone has an Audible sub the Orwell collection narrated by Stephen Fry is in the plus catalogue, and I'm always happy to listen to Stephen Fry.

https://www.audible.com.au/pd/Orwell-Collection-Audiobook/B0…
sammyla on 18/05/2023 - 14:03

+4

A must read for all the sheep who fell for the con!
Isoleaf on 19/05/2023 - 08:27

Thanks! Great study piece in high school 🤓

This was posted 1 year 6 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

[eBook, Pre Order] Animal Farm by George Orwell - Free @ Amazon AU, UK, US

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals