Why 1984 PREVENT people to recognize modern dictatorship

[NewWorldOrder]

Thinking out of the Box: Why 1984 PREVENTS people to recognize modern dictatorship

1984 is outdated : it describes and focus people on a communist/nazi type dictatorship whereas the "modern" ones will and already ressemble the utopan/dysutopian society described in Stirling's novel "The Domination".

I could even argue that 1984 which is so widely read today serves only as "tactical criticism" as it is a mere novel and not as "fundamental criticism" as Stirling's novel explain :

http://thescorp.multics.org/22stirling.html

"Citizens enjoy a considerable measure of freedom. As the Draka Karl von Shrakenberg explains it to an American journalist "the Domination is not a totalitarian dictatorship of the Nazi type…oligarchical collectivism is probably the best term. The citizen body as a whole is our idol, not the State or its officers; they merely execute and co-ordinate. And citizens all have the same fundamental interests, which means that criticism – tactical criticism - can safely be allowed. Which makes for greater efficiency". In fact, as Stirling puts it in the numerous and rather interesting Appendices in which he describes those details of Draka society, technology and history that cannot easily be worked into the narrative: "For the Citizen population, the Domination is a rather mild authoritarianism. There is an elected government, and a fair degree of freedom of speech and association. However, fundamental criticism (e.g. of serfdom) is not permitted, and the power of the Security Directorate has tended to gradually increase. Since there is a large degree of uniformity of opinion among the citizen population, that is not felt as much of a hardship."

[Rata]

What you´re saying is very interesting, but I only have one comment, and take no offense. You cannot possibly classify 1984 as a "mere novel", that indicates that it has less value than other writings. This also points to the fact that art must ALWAYS have a function, in your case, a social one (something left over from social criticism, taken to an extreme by communists, but, in it´s origin, saying that art must always refer to society, either to approve or criticize it), which is simply, I´m sorry, illogical. It´s very good to say that 1984 is a novel that also serves as a tool to view the flaws of a certain society, but to lessen it´s value because it is a "mere novel", or because it doesn´t reflect our current society is simply wrong. If that were the case, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Homer, Aristotle (being the first man who wrote down anything, that we know of, that can be considered "literary theory", not because he wrote any works of fiction), Boccaccio, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Milton, Marlowe, Hemingway, Joyce, Woolf, Shelley (both of them), Flaubert, Rabelais, Unamuno, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Byron, Keats, Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Tzara, Girondo, Huidobro, Vallejo, Neruda, Lorca, Rulfo...all must have less value because they don´t really reflect our current society and, if read the wrong way, can lead to a misinterpretation of our world (as so frequently happens). What I have to agree on with you is that if 1984 is read in order to be applied to modern day dictatiorships, it won´t really fit and will lead to a bad reading, of both current society and the novel. Still, this isn´t because it is a "mere novel" or because it was written before our time, it´s because the people who read it cannot read it properly (I´m sorry, art may be free and all but there are limits to interpreting, one of them being this specific case) and so take it to be symbolic of what we live through today. That is not the case, and even if Orwell wrote it in order to reflect the world he saw and lived in, it goes beyond that, very much beyond that. That´s why it´s considered art, not because of the social implications of the novel, not because it helps you to recognize anything and certainly NOT because it´s a novel.

[Diadem]

Good post Rata.

[dynoport]

1984 is not out dated.I think the predictions made by orwell were very acurate.I think that even now days we still have countries who are trying to use a communist form of goverment.For instance cuba is still trying to become a communist country.I disagree with you and I belive that 1984 is extremly acurate. :santasmil

[Diadem]

1984 is not out dated.I think the predictions made by orwell were very acurate.I think that even now days we still have countries who are trying to use a communist form of goverment.For instance cuba is still trying to become a communist country.I disagree with you and I belive that 1984 is extremly acurate. :santasmil

Pure communism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical: communism is, in Marxist theory, the end-state, or the result of state-socialism. The word is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life under conditions of Communist party rule (which is not necessarily Communism).

Communism is a rather practical ideology; however, it is unfortunate that self-serving and corrupt politicians (dictators), in addition to rather intense propaganda aimed at fear-mongering, have created the impression otherwise. Capitalism tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I'd be cautious about believing that capitalism is the economic panacea.

As a matter of fact, in Biblical times, Jesus reflected invariably upon the notion of Communism.

Did you know that the Bible referenced a sort of communist practicality on many occasions in Biblical text? Specifically the book of Acts in chapter 2, verses 44-45, and I quote,

Acts 2, 44
And all that believed were together, and had all things common

Acts 2, 45
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need

In addition, the book of Acts, chapter 4, versus 32, and I quote,

Acts 4, 32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common

So, I opine it behooves one to realize that leaders play an integral role in defining how people view a sociopolitical theory.