Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: Big Brother And The Party

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    20
    I thought they were only delaying the execution because Winston had not yet passed the final step of conversion: coming to love Big Brother. By doing so, the party has achieved their goal and he is ready to be killed.

  2. #32
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Yep, that's quite right, but while an execution has to wait until then, it can happen any time fromthen to not at all.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  3. #33

    Exclamation what is the parties perpose in ...

    being in constant war constantly keeping every one under survalence and altering the past? please help me asap! thanks

  4. #34
    Thinking...thinking! dramasnot6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a perpetually transitional state.
    Posts
    7,102
    Embodying Foucault's panopticon to illustrate a particular power structure that our society was heading towards. Arguably, we have internalized a mode of constant surveillance and discipline of our thoughts and actions that we are the panopticon. Orwell simply externalizes what already exists within our society.
    I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.


    Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

  5. #35
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by kanisnine View Post
    being in constant war constantly keeping every one under survalence and altering the past? please help me asap! thanks
    It's all about making sure that the Party controls every aspect of life. If history lessons (or newspapers) contain information which shows any alternative truth to the Party, they must be destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by dramasnot6 View Post
    Embodying Foucault's panopticon to illustrate a particular power structure that our society was heading towards.
    Wasn't it Bentham rather than Foucault?

    And the panopticon doesn't really fit, because that was secret observation, while the very point of 1984 is that the observation is obvious.

    I don't agree that [our] society has ever been "headed towards" Oceania, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by dramasnot6 View Post
    Arguably, we have internalized a mode of constant surveillance and discipline of our thoughts and actions that we are the panopticon. Orwell simply externalizes what already exists within our society.
    Not even close, in my opinion. Orwell clearly stated exactly why he wrote the book, and none of it was remotely like your answer. Individuals are not usually internally totalitarian as far as I'm aware.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by longsocks View Post
    Although many people dispise Big Brother, I think they would be lost without it. They party is all the have ever known. There would be no effective form of government. The people all complain about it, but Big brother gives them life. Big Brother always.


    What do you think?
    You're a bit right here.
    Do humans need a leader figure? Yes, they do. It's in the human instinct of following a leader. But I think if the people in the story who work for Big Brother knew that the life they are leading wasn't the right one and fake, they wouldn't do anything for him anymore. Would they be lost? Maybe. But there are other continents left for them to go and start a life who have a society to a better one. There they can have the feeling again they're working for the society, for something and so they wouldn't be lost.
    There are different forms of a society and the one they had with Big Brother was the wrong one in many cases.
    Yet our society isn't good either we're still being brainwashed by the media and things we see and accept life like they let us see life.
    Do we need a society? Yes. But the one we have now should be replaced by a better system. Simply because life isn't life anymore. It's just working until we're old and sick by stress. This isn't what our life was supposed to be...

  7. #37
    Registered User delta-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    27
    ^I agree that we do need society, however, we will forever complain about the state of the society that we live in. The whole point of society is that it isnt just one voice, it's many, many voices all together. That's what everyone from the book was missing- a difference of opinion to what Big Brother offers up.

  8. #38
    the beloved: Gladys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,603

    Why Ingsoc?

    Oceania's political system is Ingsoc, or 'English Socialism'

    Did Orwell fear that the post war English Labour party, which had a socialist agenda, would eventually undertake a coup and form a non-democratic, Stalinist Ingsoc? This scenario seems far-fetched.

    Alternatively, did Orwell choose his close-to-home England just to emphasise the perils of Stalinism and its communist successors and imitators?

    If the latter, I presume Big Brother 'Stalin' maintains a low profile to avoid providing a target for dissent. Or is 'Big Brother' just a front for a communist oligarchy - the inner party.

    How large is the inner party?

  9. #39
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    Oceania's political system is Ingsoc, or 'English Socialism'

    Did Orwell fear that the post war English Labour party, which had a socialist agenda, would eventually undertake a coup and form a non-democratic, Stalinist Ingsoc? This scenario seems far-fetched.
    Having seen the Communist infiltration of international Labour movements, I suspect Orwell did consider some possibility of Communists taking over completely. It wasn't the prime mover, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    Alternatively, did Orwell choose his close-to-home England just to emphasise the perils of Stalinism and its communist successors and imitators?
    No. He set in scenes he knew and that his readers would know, to bring the point home more strongly. While Stalin appears as a target with the obvious similarities of Stalin's USSR and Oceania, Orwell had already done Russia, so 1984 was a more general warning against totalitarianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    If the latter, I presume Big Brother 'Stalin' maintains a low profile to avoid providing a target for dissent. Or is 'Big Brother' just a front for a communist oligarchy - the inner party.
    BB was all figurehead and may not have ever existed as a man. BB is the embodiment of the Party, as designed by Inner Party members.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    How large is the inner party?
    Good question.

    I'd look at it this way: At the time, the population of Britain was say 40,000,000. Probably 80% were proles, leaving 8,000,000 Party members, of which 80% were Outer Party, leaving 1.6 million Inner Party members.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by kanisnine View Post
    What is the party's purpose in being in constant war, constantly keeping every one under surveillance and altering the past? please help me asap! thanks
    Let's say you are a Party ruler. If you leave people live their own life in relative peace, not only some will come to compete with you for power, but the vast majority will remain idle during those struggles.
    To the contrary, if you impose a constant effort of war, with continuous sacrifices, everyone will force each other to bow their heads and do what they're told. Not only because there is a war raging, but mainly because of a human tendency: We can cope to great extents with self-proclaimed elite living a much softer life than ours, at our own expense, but if our neighbour dares anything to be better off than us, here we go...
    Last edited by Sindel; 05-25-2009 at 11:47 AM.

  11. #41
    the beloved: Gladys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Sindel View Post
    if you impose a constant effort of war, with continuous sacrifices, everyone will force each other to bow their heads and do what they're told.
    Primeval, tribal solidarity on a grand scale.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    Oceania's political system is Ingsoc, or 'English Socialism'

    Did Orwell fear that the post war English Labour party, which had a socialist agenda, would eventually undertake a coup and form a non-democratic, Stalinist Ingsoc? This scenario seems far-fetched.

    Alternatively, did Orwell choose his close-to-home England just to emphasise the perils of Stalinism and its communist successors and imitators?

    If the latter, I presume Big Brother 'Stalin' maintains a low profile to avoid providing a target for dissent. Or is 'Big Brother' just a front for a communist oligarchy - the inner party.

    How large is the inner party?

    Hi again Gladys:

    It's possible that Orwell is afraid of a coup like you said. But I think the revolution in 1984 is more profound. He thinks that socialism is a natural progression facilitatated by advances in science, technology and psychology.

    Conditioning is the method of socialism. It is the impulse to perfect man according to an arbitrary good or ideal desired by other men. In some cases the ideal is benign. But he also observes it mutating into grotesque forms in the nature of the Soviet and Nazi Systems.

    It is my belief that Orwell recognizes the capricious discretion involved in selecting the ideal. He projects his fear that, supported by powerful conditioning, a malignant species of socialism emerges, better adapted than any other that then prevails. The 'good' is not good at all but becomes the power of the Party for its own sake as O'brien tells us.

    The Party are fire-ants introduced to North America. Better adapted then native ants they completely and forever replace them.

  13. #43
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    I have to disagree pretty strongly with that; Orwell explained exactly how the change to Insoc came about, and it was abundantly clear that there was no perversion of socialism involved. The use of the name "socialism" may have been useful in terms of initial support and indoctrination, but there was never a socialist agenda in the way that the Russian Revolution did, for example.

    In 1984 the only object in gaining power was retaining power - every part of the Party seizing the reins was designed solely to protect and preserve Party rule forever.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    I have to disagree pretty strongly with that; Orwell explained exactly how the change to Insoc came about, and it was abundantly clear that there was no perversion of socialism involved. The use of the name "socialism" may have been useful in terms of initial support and indoctrination, but there was never a socialist agenda in the way that the Russian Revolution did, for example.

    In 1984 the only object in gaining power was retaining power - every part of the Party seizing the reins was designed solely to protect and preserve Party rule forever.
    C'mon there! I love you Atheist but English-Socialism is shortened in Newspeak to Ingsoc. Of course it's a perversion of socialism you silly. Orwell would be an idiot to use that allusion if he didn't mean the Party to be a mutant totalitarian form of socialism. Neither would O'brien explicitly denounce the Soviet and Nazi socialisms when explaining to Winston the 'why' of the party's orthopraxy. You're an Inner Party member. Aren't you?
    Last edited by Leonard_K; 05-29-2009 at 08:58 AM.

  15. #45
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonard_K View Post
    C'mon there! I love you Atheist but English-Socialism is shortened in Newspeak to Ingsoc. Of course it's a perversion of socialism you silly. Orwell would be an idiot to use that allusion if he didn't mean the Party to be a mutant totalitarian form of socialism.
    That's where I see it differently, because I don't see it as a form of socialism just because it uses the name "socialism". I'd go along with a mutant totalitarian form of communism, but since the object of the Party has always been simply power for power's sake, I can't call it socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonard_K View Post
    Neither would O'brien explicitly denounce the Soviet and Nazi socialisms when explaining to Winston the 'why' of the party's orthopraxy.
    Note that O'Brien doesn't denounce the doctrines of Hitler or Stalin, but merely points out how weak they were in suppression of dissent and is scornful of their attempts to be totalitarian.

    And N.B. the first line of that monologue:

    "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake."

    That's why the Party is invincible - it has no doctrine to support beyond that. Everyone not an Inner Party member is just cannon fodder to the slavery they're held in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonard_K View Post
    You're an Inner Party member. Aren't you?


    Doubleplusgood spot!

    And you're right - I'd certainly be cast as O'Brien!

    I can see Bazarov playing Winston, but I don't know the women well enough to pick a Julia.

    You strike me as a bit of a Syme.



    I'm looking forward to meeting you soon.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •