Confused

[Duke Pontus]

This is supposed to be a representation on what the USSR was trying to become? If this is true?
I don’t get it how people can be oppressed like this? Unless you make your subjects complete and utter thralls. Why diddn't they rebel? I just don’t see this happening in a modern society >< Please tell me how I’m wrong.
(Sorry, I'm only at part2 chapter3. But this question is itching within me.)

[crisaor]

Orwell had in mind the USSR in its Stalin period when he wrote the book, but he didn't intend to portray that situation specifically, but rather the general situation of a totalitarist regime, be it that or any other.

People can get oppressed like that, in fact, they are, you need only check some 3rd world countries to find modern examples. People can't or won't rebel for a wide variety of reasons. Conditioning, propaganda, repression, are all efficient ways to achieve that, and even then, it's not like the transition is immediately, quite the contrary. The more slow and subtle it is, the people are less likely to take notice of it. Sadly, unlike you, I see this happening in modern societies and in advanced countries very clearly. The cutting of civil and human rights in the name of "patriotism" or "national security" is a fit example of this. Lying to the populace in order to make them accept things they wouldn't normally accept if approached honestly is another one.

I believe that one of the things Orwell intended with his book was to warn that once a totalitarist regime has managed to install itself, it'd be very hard to overcome it, so the best thing to do would be to prevent it from even beginning to establish itself. However, if the leaning towards totalitarism is masked, resisting it becomes much harder.

[subterranean]

I think Orwell wrote the most extreme form of oppression that a country is capable to do its citizens. As Crisaor have said, the sort of oppressions like that (somewhat at a lighter level) did happened in many third world countries.


I believe that one of the things Orwell intended with his book was to warn that once a totalitarist regime has managed to install itself, it'd be very hard to overcome it, so the best thing to do would be to prevent it from even beginning to establish itself. However, if the leaning towards totalitarism is masked, resisting it becomes much harder.

I'm not sure, but I think Orwell didn't really descibe how such regime managed to established itself.

[Duke Pontus]

Thank you for the reply.
This certainly has cleared some thing up. Now I’m definitely reading up on any article I can find about 3rd world countries oppression.

[B-Mental]

The more slow and subtle it is, the people are less likely to take notice of it. Sadly, unlike you, I see this happening in modern societies and in advanced countries very clearly. The cutting of civil and human rights in the name of "patriotism" or "national security" is a fit example of this. Lying to the populace in order to make them accept things they wouldn't normally accept if approached honestly is another...

I feel very strongly that you are correct. Another way that might be viewed is the use of the military to react to natural disasters. Once a power is given to the government in the name of security, it is extremely difficult to retract.

[lmax]

The key is language, specifically in the case of 1984 this is Newspeak. In 'The priciples of Newspeak' Orwell states that...

"In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent"

This is the core of the party's control of the populace of Oceania, if it is not possible to think in a manner that contradicts the Government then it is not possible to oppose the Government, the thought processes required to rebel are totally impossible.

The same applies to criminal activity, if no-one was aware of the concept of murder then the chances are it wouldn't happen, the thought police are only concerned with what is "thinkcrime" since thought is the source of all action, whether this thought is conscious or subconcious and thought is only possible through the appropriate vocabulary.

"There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable"


Unless you make your subjects complete and utter thralls

This is ultimately the point, people may not be born stupid, but it is easy through appropriate conditioning to make them so, or if that is unachievable then to make them apathetic will achieve the same end.

Worringly enough this can be seen in modern society in the growth in popularity of trashy tabloid publications and the decline of real thought provoking literature, if people aren't using certain parts of their vocabulary then the words themselves become irrelevant and ultimately meaningless.

So the answer to avoiding totalitarian government is to keep reading, keep thinking and keep asking questions.

hope that helps.

luke

[crisaor]

I'm not sure, but I think Orwell didn't really descibe how such regime managed to established itself.
I agree, Sub. I didn't mean to imply that, but the opposite. Since it's not possible to fight the established regime (this is what Orwell shows us), then the only way left is to prevent it from taking roots, which is what I think Orwell was trying to say, even if he didn't put it into words in the text itself.

I feel very strongly that you are correct. Another way that might be viewed is the use of the military to react to natural disasters. Once a power is given to the government in the name of security, it is extremely difficult to retract.
Indeed.

[Ragnar]

Its not Just the third world. In fact given the lack of technology in the area, I would say 1984 COULDN'T happen there.

If we look at Britain since, say, 1980, there are very interesting comparisons between "1984" and the present situation.

Probably the most obvious cause of these changes started with the miners strike in the U.K. Various "popular" newspaper tabloids were virtually taken over by the government of the time, lead by Thatcher. Very few, if any, of the press showed the miners point of view. Although not taken over in the "conventional" way, the tabloids in particular, were now owned and run by a very few individuals who were all sympathetic with, if not actually, as highly publicized, eating at private dinners with Thatcher.

The editorials and headlines of these various "news" papers showed the new found friend ship between the press and the incumbent Government. During the same summer Britain was swarming with the so called “hippy convoys”. Time and time again, we were shown pictures of “drug dealing”, “riots caused by “hippies”(!?), rubbish left at deserted camping sites, U.S.W, U.S.W.

Interviews with “scarred locals” were numerous, both on T.V and in the press. The police raided deserted factories, and airfields, literally in the middle of no-where, “because the crowds were becoming dangerous”. (How many people do you need to become “dangerous (unsafe) numbers” in the middle of a deserted air field?) The purpose of these crowds? Looting and pillaging?, Raping the sheep?, total anarchy and the downfall of the dinner suit and bow tie class? NO. Partying to good music (debatable) at “all hours of the night”. (GOSH!) Remember these took place in the middle of nowhere. 15, 20 miles from the closest farm, let alone town. The police reason? “There were not enough toilets, and some people were taking drugs”. (Have they never been to the rugby at Murray field, or a British National health hospital? (No forget the hospital, not enough drugs in National health hospitals. (Unless, of course, you can pay.)).

If interviews were shown at all, from the “hippies”, or the miners, or the print workers, it appeared that the interviewer had gone out of there way to pick the most inarticulate, radical, or stoned people available. The impression you were left with was “That’s the enemy we must fight”.
Now, these forces of “law and order” are being turned against any one of middle Eastern origin, or even appearance.

One cannot go five meters without being caught on video cameras, run mostly by faceless, and doubtlessly dodgy, security firms. (Definitely unanswerable). You’re mobile phone allows them to track you to within five feet. Government sponsored worms/bugs are reading you’re computer files. They want to start making one carry I.D. cards with chips, remember, if it has a chip it can be tracked, and that is the only way an I.D. card can be useful. They have I.D. cards in France, Germany, Italy and many others. Listen closely U.K. Government, These countries still have fraud and numerous other crimes .I.D. cards do not work!

Also remember the bulk of this was written before the new "Anti terror" laws, and the threat of the U.K Government to take away the rights of "Habeus Corpus" for all crime, not just the present "suspicion of terrorism".

See also Orwells description of keeping the masses "happy" by supplying them with senceless, mind numbing "entertainment", a sort of electronic Valium. E.G, T.V licence payer forks out thousands to paint some ones house, who could, obviously, afford to do it themselves" programmes, "Police chase" programmes, "Big Brother". Any one spot the irony in that one?

1984 is alive and well. Read it, or read it again, and think.

[mofo erectus]

All your replies are ace. I asbolutely agree. See my radical 1984 = 2005 blog on www.myspace.com/mofoerectus. 1984 is one of my most valued books, and I know Orwell will be looking on at all that's going on in the modern world with a sense of horror.

[imprudentica]

Yes, I agree. Even here in California, citizens are preparing to vote on an initiative requiring doctors, who plan to perform an abortion on a minor, to notify her parents. If this notification is disallowed, the message that sends is that Big Brother knows more about how to take care of your children than you do. Big Brother will be permitted to conceal your child's conduct, and help her make decisions on her own, without you (her parent), that will affect the rest of her life, without your knowledge. The Law says they can't even give her aspirin at school without her parent's consent, but they can perform an abortion not only without consent, but without a parent's knowledge and input? Her life, emotions, mood and body will be altered forever, and the parents will never know about it; never be able to help, support, counsel, or influence their own child to think and weigh seriously a decision that will impact the rest of her life.

[Chava]

Yes, I agree. Even here in California, citizens are preparing to vote on an initiative requiring doctors, who plan to perform an abortion on a minor, to notify her parents. If this notification is disallowed, the message that sends is that Big Brother knows more about how to take care of your children than you do. Big Brother will be permitted to conceal your child's conduct, and help her make decisions on her own, without you (her parent), that will affect the rest of her life, without your knowledge. The Law says they can't even give her aspirin at school without her parent's consent, but they can perform an abortion not only without consent, but without a parent's knowledge and input? Her life, emotions, mood and body will be altered forever, and the parents will never know about it; never be able to help, support, counsel, or influence their own child to think and weigh seriously a decision that will impact the rest of her life.

As much as I think that parents should be involved if a minor has to go through an abortion, to support her, and else, i still maintain that it should be her decision, regardless of what the govenrment, or whoever else has decided. Personally, i find that disallowing abortions, or morning after pills or whatever, is an act of intruding upon privacy. I'm well aware that according to somereligions, an abortion is considered murder, and i shan't discuss it, but isn't it cruel, to put a teen through, a birth, and then a further 18 years, of taking care of a child? likel to throw her onto all kinds of social service (if same is available). I just don't see how this mother would be able to provide advantages for her child, in such a situation, and thus i finc abortion to be the better solution. (okay, slightly off topic) the point: It is ridiculous that an abortion, but not the intake of an aspirin... odd, isn't it?

[Ragnar]

As has been pointed out, the only way to stop "Big Brother" is prevention. Sadly I think we are way to late for that. He is allready here. As my last post pointed out.

O.K, I would not change democracy for any other known system, but it is one of the problems that between terms the Government can do what they like. We have no say in it. Particularly with the situation as it is today. I do not know of any party in any Western democracy that would do things any different to that which the present Governments are acting. There fore we have no choice, no matter how many different partys are on the voting list, if they all offer the same is that not a form of "one party state" by default? Has "democracy" become a dictator-ship by another name?

Perhaps this may be slightly off topic, but I think that 1984 does address similar concerns.

[Chava]

The problem is that most people are willing to accept further control and more surveillance these days, in particular due to governmental scare tactics, concerning terorism, and constant news of murder, robbery and what not. There was a poll made in denmark, where people were asked if they were willing to give up some of their freedom for their own safety, and most said yes. It's quite terrifying, personally i don't think that extra cameras are the solution, i believe in democracy, and i believe in personal responsibility. Everyone has to help everyone to form a soceity, it's lucracy to believe that more surveillance should make the world safer.

[B-Mental]

I know that we are supposed to avoid politics on the forum, but how does one intellectually discuss 1984 without politics?