Orwell didn’t live to see the compromise which English Socialism now represents – a minimum of public ownership, a social-security apparatus that costs too much, a mass of ‘equalizing’ laws not easily enforceable, and a necessary thwarting of individual, as opposed to collective, endeavour.
1985 by Anthony Burgess
I assume that "compromise" means "a minimum of public ownership...". But there is a problem.
Burgess says that "a necessary thwarting of individual, as opposed to collective, endeavour" is included in this compromise (If I'm not interpreting this sentence wrong). The problem is the word "as opposed to". I think Burgess means that a socialism other than "English Socialism" would "thwart" collective endeavour. But because of the compromise, now English Socialism does thwart individual endeavour.
Am I correct? Or am I interpreting the sentence wrong?