Big Brother And The Party

[omni29]

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.

[The Atheist]

Yep, that's quite right, but while an execution has to wait until then, it can happen any time fromthen to not at all.

[kanisnine]

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

[dramasnot6]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.

[losbertos]

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...

[delta-fan]

^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.

[Gladys]

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?

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sindel]

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...

[Gladys]

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.

[Leonard_K]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[Leonard_K]

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?

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.