1984

[galanx]

Left wing, given that there is no private enterprise.

Yes, it definitely resembles Stalin's Soviet Union more than Nazi Germany, with a dose of Labour Party austerity. Though of course all war economies tend toward government control- it's one time it works.

Reminds me of that old quote about Communism being too boring; Fascism too exciting.

 

[galanx]

But Oceania controlled all the industry and the intentionally crappy products that they produced, Victory Coffee , Victory Cigarettes

Here's a question , would Oceana ever collapse ? Winston Smith seemed t think so but not OBrien.

Well, the afterword, written in Standard English, talks about Newspeak in the past tense, so that may be a cheery hint.

In real life, no system is eternal- not even Rome.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes, it definitely resembles Stalin's Soviet Union more than Nazi Germany, with a dose of Labour Party austerity. Though of course all war economies tend toward government control- it's one time it works.

Reminds me of that old quote about Communism being too boring; Fascism too exciting.

Orwell hated Stalinism, so it no surprise that Oceana, Eastasia and Eurasia bear such a resemblance.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Left or Right. I think the point is that in any real dictatorship everything would be controlled by a ruling oligarchy. Whether Big Brother really exists or not, or is just the corporate logo for a ruling class that owns/controls the means of production, is irrelevant. The view from Winston Smith's perspective would be the same.

 

[BAYLOR]

Well, the afterword, written in Standard English, talks about Newspeak in the past tense, so that may be a cheery hint.

In real life, no system is eternal- not even Rome.

I think if you consider O'Brien's reaction to Winston Smith prophecy. The mad gleam his eye, O'Brien deep down, he knows that Winston was right , he won't face that possibility or acknowledge it. He's already looked into the abyss and seen the beast and its driven him insane. O'Brien feeds people like Winston Smith to the beast hoping the beast won't eat him, but in the end it will devour him too.

 

[hitmouse]

Left or Right. I think the point is that in any real dictatorship everything would be controlled by a ruling oligarchy. Whether Big Brother really exists or not, or is just the corporate logo for a ruling class that owns/controls the means of production, is irrelevant. The view from Winston Smith's perspective would be the same.

Spot on. Totalitarian systems start to resemble one another, to the point where left-right distinctions become superficial.

 

[BAYLOR]

There is decay in Oceana, The food and everything getting worse , people living in ever more desperate circumstances, not even knowing what day it is because it might be crime to posses that knowledge . Sooner or later , society will reach a tipping point an not all the parties power and terror will be able to stem the the resulting breakdown and avalanche . Oceana EastAsia and Eurasia are also bound interdependent upon one another. like pillars in a building if one falls , they all fall.

 

[BAYLOR]

Imagine living in Oceana, how soul crushingly bad it would truly be.

 

[Fried Egg]

I prefer Animal Farm because it is an excellent illustration of the rise of a totalitarian government. Over the years I've seen people compare aspects of 1984 to the modern American government, which makes no sense to me at all. I think people feel fear and associate with that, but they aren't thinking through the bigger picture. 1984 may be a worst nightmare, but it isn't realistic. Animal Farm is.

I think the prospect of a dystopia, like that envisaged in 1984, seemed more likely during the cold war era. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the move towards a more asymmetrical power/ideology struggle in the world, the likelihood of a dystopian system coming into being in that particular form seems more remote.

But still there are many aspects of 1984 that are all too prevalent today. Such as the near universal surveillance via CCTV cameras that we accept as a fact of life these days. Also the way in which the government uses fear of external threats (real or otherwise) to strengthen its powers and distract its populace from domestic problems (and its own failures). The perpetual state of war in which Oceania resided was used to justify any action the state took. Whether this state of war even existed in the story was immaterial. The "truth" was controlled by the state and the people had no choice but to believe what they were presented with.

And how much did this book (and others like it) serve to prevent this very thing from coming into being? Perhaps it made us more cynical about the things our government told us, more careful about allowing it more power. Perhaps the very existence (and popularity) of this book ensured that such a vision would never come to be? Thank goodness that it seems an implausible future now but I think it's plausibility as an alternative timeline that we might well have gone down in the cold war era was all too real. And perhaps that is the best way to read and appreciate the novel now; not as a fearful vision of what the future might hold, but rather what the present might have been.

 

[Toby Frost]

A very good point. It was a powerful weapon in the Cold War.

It's also worth pointing out that 1984 is about not just the way the state works but the mentality of the people who run it. 1984 makes clear that a dictatorship is inherently corrupt and sadistic: O’Brien himself says that the purpose of a dictatorship is to satisfy its rulers’ lust for power, and the way that one wields power is to cause suffering. This contrasts with Huxley’s world controller in Brave New World, who says, IIRC, that the world has to be run for people because they can’t be trusted to run it themselves. Essentially, the point Orwell is making here is that all dictatorships are, ultimately, morally intolerable. Orwell attacked left-wing academics for their loyalty to Stalin and other dictators, and this point seems to be related: under the superficial glamour, order and manliness that a dictator will try to present, there is only really sadism and cruelty.

 

[soulsinging]

I really enjoyed 1984 because of the gritty feel, and the notion of constant surveillance and economic ruin as weapons of control. Very prescient I think. Animal Farm was just as enjoyable to me, for opposite reasons. It's a bit more absurdist and I do love dark humor. Brave New World was ok, but a little hippy dippy in its dystopian vision for me, which makes sense given the author. I loved Fahrenheit 451... very beautiful and eulogistic. It also dovetails into a lot of fears I have about our intellectual future... can the deep thinking demanded by books survive in a world obsessed with 160 character-limited twitter?

I think my two favorite dystopias have not been mentioned yet though. First is Kafka's The Trial... a nighmarish vision of an inhumane bureaucracy where "guilty" citizens are so powerless against the system they beg for punishment without even knowing their crimes. Then there is A Clockwork Orange... where problem citizens are simply "reconditioned" to function in society through torture. It also raises the disturbing notion that is something inherently violent and savage in young men, something borne out by modern statistics.

 

[hitmouse]

Which statistics?

 

[soulsinging]

Which statistics?

That violent crimes are committed by men aged 16-36 almost exclusively, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, income, etc.

 

[Edward M. Grant]

...or a right wing dictatorship. Hitler rose to power as the leader of a 'people's party'. All dictatorships are the same whichever set of clothes their High Commands dress themselves.

What was that joke from Nazi Germany? Something like "Under Communism, the State takes all your cows. Under Nazism, the State makes you pay to feed your cows, then takes all the milk."

The differences between the two were far, far less than the similarities. Which is why so many on the left supported Hitler until he attacked Stalin. Calling one 'right wing' and the other 'left wing' just makes that distinction meaningless.

Back on 1984, we were forced to read it at school, and I found it one of the most dire and boring novels ever. Then I read it on my own time years later, and was far more impressed; in particular, the first line is one of my all-time favourites. Probably helped that I went on an Orwell tour of London one time, and the guide was pointing out the places where various things happened that inspired some of the setting of the book.

That said, I always felt that Brazil was a much more realistic take on authoritarian Britain. The Party in 1984 were far too competent and open about their power.

 

[hitmouse]

That violent crimes are committed by men aged 16-36 almost exclusively, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, income, etc.

With respect, that is not statistics. It is an assertion worthy of the Daily Mail. I am actually quite interested to see the hard stats, with a reference that I can check.

 

[soulsinging]

With respect, that is not statistics. It is an assertion worthy of the Daily Mail. I am actually quite interested to see the hard stats, with a reference that I can check.

I've read it multiple places over the years from university sociology classes to modern medicine journals. If you google it you can find dozens of places discussing it. Here are the first few I found, with ranges from 69% to 85%. I'd be more thorough and vetting but I'm lazy and don't have unlimited time.

sociology.org (from the 90's which references this disparity going back as long as statistics have been kept)
Masculinity and Crime: A Quantitative Exploration of Messerschmidt’s Hypothesis

The Telegraph
Are men natural born criminals? The prison numbers don't lie

Politifact
Sally Kohn: 'White men account for 69 percent of those arrested for violent crimes'

LA Times
Violent-Crime Study Shows Gender Gap

US National Library of Medicine
Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[BAYLOR]

A very good point. It was a powerful weapon in the Cold War.

It's also worth pointing out that 1984 is about not just the way the state works but the mentality of the people who run it. 1984 makes clear that a dictatorship is inherently corrupt and sadistic: O’Brien himself says that the purpose of a dictatorship is to satisfy its rulers’ lust for power, and the way that one wields power is to cause suffering. This contrasts with Huxley’s world controller in Brave New World, who says, IIRC, that the world has to be run for people because they can’t be trusted to run it themselves. Essentially, the point Orwell is making here is that all dictatorships are, ultimately, morally intolerable. Orwell attacked left-wing academics for their loyalty to Stalin and other dictators, and this point seems to be related: under the superficial glamour, order and manliness that a dictator will try to present, there is only really sadism and cruelty.

Those in charge of a dictatorship are always looking over their shoulder . O'Brian and those ruling with him rule with sense fear . The idea of killing an opponent of the regime actually seems to terrify them deep down, hence they brainwash people into loving Big brother again and then execute them. They never kill an an enemy of the state because they don't want create a martyr , such a person would be a rallying point. OBrien and his cohorts are mad and the madness is not just fueled by the lust for power , but the fear that if they stand still, they'll loose it, and they too will end up in the Ministry of Love.

 

[Fried Egg]

Another dystopian vision and one that supposedly influenced 1984 is "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

And if you're looking for a dystopian novel with a happy ending, there's "Emphyrio" by Jack Vance.

That said, I always felt that Brazil was a much more realistic take on authoritarian Britain. The Party in 1984 were far too competent and open about their power.

I wasn't keen. I watched it soon after reading 1984 and felt it paled in comparison.

 

[Toby Frost]

There’s certainly a moment where Winston realises that the Party will kill Syme (an Outer Party member) because he is too intelligent, even though he is entirely devout. I don’t know whether there is a policy of not killing Inner Party members, but O’Brien seems to know too much as well. He lacks the kind of violent, mindless loyalty to Big Brother that would be required. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Aaronson and the others in the photo that Winston hides were Inner Party members, so O’Brien had probably better watch his back.

 

[JunkMonkey]

What was that joke from Nazi Germany? Something like "Under Communism, the State takes all your cows. Under Nazism, the State makes you pay to feed your cows, then takes all the milk."

Then there was the Russian joke - "Under Capitalism Man exploits Man. Under Communism it is the other way around!"