For a detailed look at Orwell's views on socialism, read his non-fiction work "The Road to Wigan Pier". It's split into two parts: first an investigation into the living conditions of poor English people; second an examination of socialism, both arguing for its necessity and acknowledging the practical difficulties it faces.

His first work, "Down and out in Paris and London" was also really interesting in that respect, and highly biographical.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_Londo...

Wigan Pier was a fairly early work but notice even then how in much of it Orwell is complaining about what he considered "cranks" in the socialist movement. He didn't like vegetarians and was even offended that a socialist convention offered a vegetarian option! He didn't like free-love enthusiasts. He didn't even like people who drank orange juice rather than tea or beer! (OJ I guess was seen as a "health food" back then rather than a normal beverage)

Orwell was generally in favour of a practical, redistributive socialism, and strongly against Communism, especially after getting betrayed by them in Spain.

This is a common problem since about the 1930s, that Communist parties were big on loyalty and short on critical thinking, tending to support Stalinism and downplay or disbelieve its totalitarianism.

I second the recommendation to read The Road To Wigan Pier.

He was against Stalinism.

But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists.

Which is why I always find it quite amusing when libertarians and conservatives use Animal Farm and 1984 as support in their arguments. Orwell would break no bread with them; he was a socialist of a revolutionary bent.

> But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists.

That's why he was against Communism. His experience with the Communists and with being a Communist.

As well as the point made by the others, part of why he opposed (big C) Communism was that they were counterrevolutionary and suppressed the actual socialist revolution that was happening in Spain at the time. In short, the Stalinists were too right-wing for him. Homage to Catalonia does make that clear.

There's no sense, in any of Orwell's later writing, that he renounced socialism and plenty that affirmed his socialist ideas. Orwell stated in one of those works (Why I Write, 1946), that every word he wrote since 1936 was for democratic socialism, and the ending of Animal Farm, for instance, ultimately shows the communist pigs being no different from the capitalist humans (something that the CIA latched onto when they financed the 1948 animated film version, and so they had the ending changed).

He was against Stalinism and the views of the British Communist Party (which were Stalinists). But he as late as 1946 pronounced himself a supporter of democratic socialism (in "Why I Write"), which can mean anything from the left wing of social democracy to left communists. In other writings he demonstrated a lot of Trotskyist influences. E.g. a lot of the criticism of Stalinism in Animal Farm is heavily incfluenced by Trotskyism.

The Animal Farm is basically Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" done with animals.

Citation needed.

My point is that Orwell at that time in his life was suggesting that no matter how good the intentions of revolutionaries, oppressive regimes would be the end result. Yes, as others have mentioned he remained vaguely dedicated to "democratic socialism" but that presumably wouldn't involve any revolution, just voting in a democratic fashion.

I agree that the Nazis weren't socialist in any useful sense ... but how were they not nationalist?

Yeah. "Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Fuhrer." It's certainly collectivist no matter which color socialist it may or may not be. If anything, it's a socialism of blood, both in heritage and in the sense of sacrifice of blood (of the individual) for blood ( in the sense of Ein Volk) .