Hard and Soft Totalitarianism: Orwell, Huxley and the Blind Spot of the Left

Few twentieth-century thinkers are often mentioned in the same breath as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Their work still serves as a point of reference in debates about power, freedom, and manipulation. During the COVID crisis, they were invoked by right-wing conservative voices as prophets of repressive state power and technocratic behavioural control, respectively. At the time, such references were dismissed as exaggerated or “extreme.”

Now we are seeing the reverse. Left-progressive commentators have also rediscovered Orwell and Huxley, particularly to interpret the rise of figures such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They believe they can draw on Orwell to label them as fascists, and on Huxley to accuse them of technocratic totalitarianism. Meanwhile, they overlook how their own left-wing progressive ideals, “democratic socialism” and “repressive tolerance”, are themselves susceptible to totalitarian temptation.

Here, I focus primarily on a reading of Orwell’s The Lion and the Unicorn and Huxley’s The Time of the Oligarchs, recently published in excellent Dutch translations with sympathetic left-wing introductions.

Orwell’s correct analysis…

In The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell outlines two tension-filled forces, not only in pre–Second World War England but in every modern nation-state.

The lion represents:

• the power of the state,
• militarism and imperialism,
• the established order, hierarchy, and tradition.

Orwell sees both strength and moral decay here: the empire is powerful but hollowed out, lacking attention to the other side of a vital society. That side is symbolised by the unicorn, representing:

• the people and their moral ideals,
• democracy, justice, and egalitarianism,
• socialist aspirations toward equality and solidarity.

Orwell argued that England could survive the struggle against Nazi Germany only if the lion and the unicorn joined forces. They need each other:

• power without justice leads to tyranny;
• idealism without power is powerless.

…with an eye for the necessity of patriotism…

What binds the lion and the unicorn? According to Orwell, it is a shared patriotism:

• attachment to a concrete place, culture, and way of life;
• love for what is familiar and historically developed;
• loyalty without the urge to dominate others.

This patriotism aims to protect what is valuable, essential in the face of ideologies that use technocratic state power to impose radical change. Orwell saw this danger in both communism and fascism: ideologies that absolutise their own narratives, become immune to facts, are inherently imperialistic, and suppress internal dissent through censorship or violence.

…and naïve optimism

His plea for “democratic socialism” contains conservative elements worth noting, such as respect for tradition and organic development.

At the same time, his vision is naïve. Orwell saw a fundamental opposition between democracy and totalitarianism. Works like Animal Farm and 1984 fiercely criticised totalitarian tendencies in communism and fascism. Yet he failed to see that his own democratic socialism could harbour similar dynamics.

His model includes nationaliing key industries, reducing inequality, and preserving democratic institutions. The aim is a community of equal citizens without exploitation. He assumed this would emerge organically and be embraced by patriots.

In reality, achieving such a system requires a “long march through the institutions,” bureaucratic expansion, and coercion to enforce equality. This concentration of power creates a persistent temptation to suppress dissent “in the public interest.”

What begins as morally motivated equality policy can evolve into soft coercion: social pressure, bureaucratic control, and normative conformity. Freedom is gradually eroded as more aspects of life become politicised. Orwell recognised the danger—but mainly in others.

In short, democratic socialism presupposes:

• central planning,
• normative equality,
• expansion of state power,
• limitation of individual choice.

The difference from overt totalitarianism is one of degree, not principle: administrative coercion instead of terror, “responsible language” instead of censorship.

Aldous Huxley: the danger of power without the club

Unlike Orwell, Huxley distrusted all concentrations of power. His critique extended beyond politics to science, technology, and mass democracy.

In The Time of the Oligarchs, he describes how democracies drift toward technocratic rule—not through violence, but through conditioning, consumption, and psychological influence. While Orwell warned of the club, Huxley warned of opium.

The democratic individual, in Huxley’s view, is not oppressed but complacent, preferring comfort over freedom and affirmation over truth. We recognise this today in:

• citizens who accept policies for safety,
• societies that stigmatise dissent,
• cultures where moral coercion is framed as “care” and “solidarity.”

Media, algorithms, and loss of control

Bas Heijne, in his introduction, warns about manipulation via algorithms and social media. Yet this concern appears selective. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter were long tolerated by progressives as long as they aligned with dominant views. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse’s concept of “repressive tolerance,” dissenting opinions were often suppressed.

Only after Elon Musk took over Twitter and allowed more dissent did attitudes shift. Suddenly, Huxley became relevant again, and Musk was labelled an oligarch threatening democracy.

The issue, then, is not technology itself, but loss of control over narratives and information.

Rediscovery: irony…

It is doubtful whether Orwell and Huxley would appreciate their current “rediscovery.” When critics of COVID policy invoked them, they were ignored. Now, as technocratic governance and media conformity face scrutiny, their warnings are suddenly embraced.

We would do better to take their insights seriously:

• good intentions do not prevent abuse of power;
• democratic procedures do not guarantee freedom;
• claims of moral superiority are no safeguard.

Does this mean we should be grateful to Musk for enabling counter-voices? In a sense, yes. Democracy depends on power and counterpower. Algorithms can help amplify dissent.

…because power corrupts…

Orwell teaches that power corrupts. Huxley teaches that it often does so subtly, without force. The greater danger may be soft domination rather than overt repression.

The success of Trump lies partly in his resistance to mainstream narratives. Social media helped him reach large audiences when traditional media turned against him.

…even Trump?

Trump has used his mandate for policies many consider beneficial: tax cuts, economic growth, and a break from interventionist foreign policy. Yet recent developments raise questions about whether power has also affected him.

Criticism of his actions, now amplified by the same platforms that once supported him, illustrates the importance of counterforces.

Healthy distrust

From a critical perspective, the lesson is clear:

• Freedom requires distrust of all power.
• Totalitarianism can arise through force or bureaucracy.
• The greatest danger is habituation—even to leaders who once opposed it.

Orwell saw the danger but trusted socialism too much. Huxley trusted no power and therefore saw further. In an age of moral pressure and technocratic confidence, his warning seems especially relevant.

Still, Orwell’s caution remains vital: even those who oppose totalitarianism can fall into it themselves.