Big Brother And The Party

[bazarov]

Big Brother does not exist. He never gets old, he never dies, nobody never saw or will see him. He takes care for Party and the proles. He is worshiped like a God. It's easier to Proles and to everyone to understand that there is someone who controls everything, one person; it's a bit complicated to understand how Party function, which was seen in way O'Brien described it to Winston. Proles adore him and hate the Party and for bad things they will never accuse Big Brother, they will accuse Party. (Similar thing was happening in USSR and China, were Mao and Stalin were worshiped by many; however, everyone hated and was afraid of secret services).

Party controls everything. You can become Party member only by born; your parents can only be other Party Members. Members are constantly controlled by Thought police to assure no one will ever doubt in Party. They don't have privacy, friends, families or emotions; everything what are they doing is for Party. One hour of privacy is strictly controlled and sex is only allowed for creating new Party members. Telescreens, Thought Police, Two minutes of hate are some instruments which Party use for control.

Party Members should never have doubts in Party's leadership. Those who have them are caught by Thought Police, tortured and there are two possible results: death or healing. Winston was healed; instead of hate for Big Brother he says: I love Big Brother!!! That's greatest result Party can achieve; and death is the latest option. That's why Winston survived.


P.S. Any comments and ideas are welcome; unanswered questions also.

[Mandy5029]

Hi, I have to do an essay for english and the question is 'Why are Big Brother and the Party so oppressive? Use examples from the text.' thanks for any help :)

[bazarov]

How else could they control whole society? True democracy and free will? They had to be kept in constant fear of Police and Party so they would never rebel; Winston and Julia were just an exception which showed that any form of resistance is impossible.

[The Atheist]

Hi, I have to do an essay for english and the question is 'Why are Big Brother and the Party so oppressive? Use examples from the text.' thanks for any help :)

Your best plan is to re-read the pages which are supposedly taken from Goldstein's book. There's a really good explanation of why it happens and how it works.

[GirlWithABook]

Is it possible that the prohibiting of sex with all citizens except the proles, has to do with the formation of a new race? Made up of proles and proles alone?

[The Atheist]

Is it possible that the prohibiting of sex with all citizens except the proles, has to do with the formation of a new race? Made up of proles and proles alone?

Almost, yes.

The idea is that proles are just the cattle, so let them breed among themselves so they stay at the same level of [lack of] sophistication.

[bazarov]

Again, idea of Third Reich.

[longsocks]

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?:alien:

[The Atheist]

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?:alien:

I don't agree that many people despise BB. Winston is one, Julia didn't care until she met him, and O'Brien was lying. Parsons hates himself fot saying "Down with BB". The whole point of 1984 was to show how propaganda works and it's clear from the Two-Minute Hate that people love BB almost universally.

But you're right on the government - because the Party is the only rule they've known, neither the Proles nor Outer Party members would have a hope in hell of running Oceania.

[lukgem]

Yes Longsocks, but it is worth looking at the book from another point of view which has been discussed here. That as has been calculated that 99.88% of the people of Oceania were happy. It was only a few polits that dissented and tried to spoil the utopian society. Winston was a paranoid schizophrenic who needed treatment. Totalitarianism is an excellent mechanism for national happiness. What percentage of people are happy under the authoritarian politics of today?
Nowhere near 99%:)

[bazarov]

You could put those 99.98% in your signature...

[longsocks]

I don't agree that many people despise BB. Winston is one, Julia didn't care until she met him, and O'Brien was lying. Parsons hates himself fot saying "Down with BB". The whole point of 1984 was to show how propaganda works and it's clear from the Two-Minute Hate that people love BB almost universally.

But you're right on the government - because the Party is the only rule they've known, neither the Proles nor Outer Party members would have a hope in hell of running Oceania.

I agree that many of them may be happy. But do you think they were actually happy with the system, or BB told them to be happy. Like the ministry of love, they get beaten until they appreciate BB. But im only a student so what do i know.

[The Atheist]

I agree that many of them may be happy. But do you think they were actually happy with the system, or BB told them to be happy.

Genuinely happy. Completely deluded, according to our way of thinking, but happy, nonetheless.


Like the ministry of love, they get beaten until they appreciate BB. But im only a student so what do i know.

:D

"Beaten until they like BB" isn't quite right. The unperson's entire character is changed, it is the ultimate in brainwashing and as Winston shows at the end, it isn't just appreciation of BB, it's love.

[Enjoi.]

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?:alien:

I only agree on one term. If the totalitarianism government has been in power for a good 10+ years. If the government was only in power for a short period of time there still would be people who would remember how life was and a different ruler would come bringing democracy or a more stable form of government.


Yes Longsocks, but it is worth looking at the book from another point of view which has been discussed here. That as has been calculated that 99.88% of the people of Oceania were happy. It was only a few polits that dissented and tried to spoil the utopian society. Winston was a paranoid schizophrenic who needed treatment. Totalitarianism is an excellent mechanism for national happiness. What percentage of people are happy under the authoritarian politics of today?
Nowhere near 99%

Totalitarianism creates a great sense of nationalism and satisfaction toward your government, but if we had totalitarianism in todays society would we like it? Most likely not, we wouldn't have any say while we currently have a democracy. You wouldn't like not having the power to say no when the government wants to make that bad decision. As i said before i only think totalitarianism would work if: 1.The leader was extremely influential. 2. The leader works fast at removing unsatisfactory mindset. 3. It creates a common place for blame, be it a person or a country, it matters not. 4. All rebellion is silenced and no talk of rebellion reaches the mass public. 5. They can hold power for 10+ years. Then it would take hold and the people would be generally satisfied (99.88% satisfied :D) and proud of the government and country they have.

[bazarov]

1.The leader was extremely influential.


Every leader is a priori influential, otherwise he would never become a leader.


3. It creates a common place for blame, be it a person or a country, it matters not.

That's a problem. People are too smart and intelligent not to realize truth, Proles were stupid, so they couldn't realize it. Some dictators tried that already, and it didn't work with inteligencia.


4. All rebellion is silenced and no talk of rebellion reaches the mass public.

Then where is it going? To whom?

[jellolover07]

Yes Longsocks, but it is worth looking at the book from another point of view which has been discussed here. That as has been calculated that 99.88% of the people of Oceania were happy. It was only a few polits that dissented and tried to spoil the utopian society. Winston was a paranoid schizophrenic who needed treatment. Totalitarianism is an excellent mechanism for national happiness. What percentage of people are happy under the authoritarian politics of today?
Nowhere near 99%:)

The 99.88% was a figure that was invented by the Party.... statistics are rarely accurate...

The people of Oceania are not happy, they do not know happiness, they have no emotions. The people of today might not like today's government, and we may not be happy with our leaders, but overall we lead much happier lives than the people of Oceania. Winston was not actually sick an needing treatment. He had his own opinion of
Big Brother, and since it was not allowed by the Party, they felt the need to tell treat him as if he was insane, but honestly I think he was more same than many if not most of the people of Oceania.

[Enjoi.]

Every leader is a priori influential, otherwise he would never become a leader.

More influential than most, one that can pitch this form of government and have it take hold very strongly.


That's a problem. People are too smart and intelligent not to realize truth, Proles were stupid, so they couldn't realize it. Some dictators tried that already, and it didn't work with inteligencia.

One of the reasons it wouldn't work in today's society.
I also said this because after a certain number of years (as happened in 1984) the people would come to love the government and become nationalistic, once that happens a place of blame would be easy to create. The people would follow it blindly.


Then where is it going? To whom?

As in 1984, it would be found out before anyone could be informed of it or have the ability to express their feelings to the general public. Such great moderation would have to be used (as in 1984) that many people may think that it is too much.

[Enjoi.]

The 99.88% was a figure that was invented by the Party.... statistics are rarely accurate...

The statistics were most likely fabricated, agreed.


The people of Oceania are not happy, they do not know happiness, they have no emotions. The people of today might not like today's government, and we may not be happy with our leaders, but overall we lead much happier lives than the people of Oceania.

Yep, the government made them think it was a great society.


Winston was not actually sick an needing treatment. He had his own opinion of
Big Brother, and since it was not allowed by the Party, they felt the need to tell treat him as if he was insane, but honestly I think he was more same than many if not most of the people of Oceania.

The Party thought of him as insane and needing of treatment because he did not follow the way of the Party. He obviously was more sane than most because he said no. He challenged the government, and because of Orwell's never dying warning against totalitarianism, he lost.

[lukgem]

Comrades !!!!!! (Orwell may have seen my attempt at wit there).

Freedom and Liberty for all humanity, I would love to live in a world without interference from government. In my opinion the government should be as small as possible, with minimal taxation and licences, no restrictions of freedom of speech and in the form of the third vote, that of the grand jury (and in my basic knowledge of the mechanism) humanity does hold all the power we (I) the proletarians are under no duress of unwanted power and would live in a free republic.

Saying that Oceania was over 99% happy is playing devil's advocate as stupidity and ignorance cannot be classed as happiness and oligarchical rule by the few and fear by the rest cannot either. But i think you can read it in that way and see it as the schizophrenic nightmare of one man and his mental illness, against the will of the majority. Is this not the beauty of the understanding (or trying to) of 1984?

[Enjoi.]

Comrades !!!!!! (Orwell may have seen my attempt at wit there).

Freedom and Liberty for all humanity, I would love to live in a world without interference from government. In my opinion the government should be as small as possible, with minimal taxation and licences, no restrictions of freedom of speech and in the form of the third vote, that of the grand jury (and in my basic knowledge of the mechanism) humanity does hold all the power we (I) the proletarians are under no duress of unwanted power and would live in a free republic.

Just as long as laws are still upheld and crime is kept down.:thumbs_up


Saying that Oceania was over 99% happy is playing devil's advocate as stupidity and ignorance cannot be classed as happiness and oligarchical rule by the few and fear by the rest cannot either. But i think you can read it in that way and see it as the schizophrenic nightmare of one man and his mental illness, against the will of the majority. Is this not the beauty of the understanding (or trying to) of 1984?

So many different perspectives! We have to tear each part of this book apart, so we can fully understand Orwell's intentions. That is the beauty of it. Nailed it Luke.

[lukgem]

Just as long as laws are still upheld and crime is kept down.:thumbs_up

Hopefully they would be as we would all be very well educated. Our goal would be to bring Oxford standard education to the proletariat. Tremble, elite, tremble.




So many different perspectives! We have to tear each part of this book apart, so we can fully understand Orwell's intentions. That is the beauty of it. Nailed it Luke.

Yes i agree Enjoi, It really can be read, thought about, disscussed, read some more. I think its a testament to plain English prose. Which is apparently what Orwell wrote :)

[Enjoi.]

Hopefully they would be as we would all be very well educated. Our goal would be to bring Oxford standard education to the proletariat. Tremble, elite, tremble.

Mass education!! The goal of society for such a long time!! If only we could bring that standard to every single person society would be much more civilized.






Yes i agree Enjoi, It really can be read, thought about, disscussed, read some more. I think its a testament to plain English prose. Which is apparently what Orwell wrote :)

Great works never die I suppose. Opinions will always be held and discussed. If only Orwell could see how much his book has been broken down bit by bit.

[bazarov]

If only Orwell could see how much his book has been broken down bit by bit.

On western hemisphere.
On eastern...

[Enjoi.]

On western hemisphere.
On eastern...

Everywhere, its been evaluated time and time again by people all over the world.:D

[bazarov]

Don't be so sure :)

[Enjoi.]

Don't be so sure :)

It's hoping for the best that people have at least heard of it, not everyone has for sure, just hoping people are educated and have had the ability to read great literature such as this.

[lukgem]

It's hoping for the best that people have at least heard of it, not everyone has for sure, just hoping people are educated and have had the ability to read great literature such as this.

I think you are right but its been somewhat perverted by Big Brother the reality show and the use of Orwellianist type language to describe Authoritarian politics. But Hey Enjoi, do not know where you are from but the BBC did produce a good Orwellian type programme called Room 101, check it out if you can, strictly speaking though it should have been called the memory hole.:D

Sorry to divert from the literature there, within the English speaking world i think everybody has heard of Orwell or Orwellian language but are unaware of is great Humanitarianism and the lessons within it for the working class of today. I do not know about the non english speaking world maybe Bazarov can help us there.

[bazarov]

It's hoping for the best that people have at least heard of it, not everyone has for sure, just hoping people are educated and have had the ability to read great literature such as this.

Did you know that more people have heard for Big Mac then for Bible? And if you think little about it you won't find it too weird.

Honestly, I have never heard for Orwell before joining this forum and I am absolutely sure that 99,9% of my friends haven't heard for him too (that 0,1% is my influence).The fact that, combined with Shakespeare; he is the most discussed author on this forum got me interested (also, one member here said that I remind him on Napoleon so I had to figure out is it good or bad :D) so I gave him opportunity.
And I am well educated and have read really a lot; but never came across Orwell. You find it weird, I know.
But, one member here; who is from Florida once asked ''Where is Russia?'' and ''Who is Tolstoy?'' ( I am not Russian, but that amazed me). And that member is a bookworm? So what should I think about that? Maybe it's not her fault, nobody in school talked about Tolstoy so she doesn't know, haven't see it or anything else. East and west are two worlds, my dear.

And Tolstoy made me wonder more then Orwell. And is greater writer then Orwell.




Sorry to divert from the literature there, within the English speaking world i think everybody has heard of Orwell or Orwellian language but are unaware of is great Humanitarianism and the lessons within it for the working class of today. I do not know about the non english speaking world maybe Bazarov can help us there.

Why for working class? What about others?

[omni29]

original post - "That's why Winston survived"
I don't think Winston does survive, he is simply released to be executed at a later date, just like the three men in the bar. His brief 'freedom' is like a reward for good behavior [ie. his coming to love big brother].

[The Atheist]

original post - "That's why Winston survived"
I don't think Winston does survive, he is simply released to be executed at a later date, just like the three men in the bar. His brief 'freedom' is like a reward for good behavior [ie. his coming to love big brother].

No. He's now a perfect member of society, and as O'Brien told him, he may live out his entire life. Once the conversion is complete, there's no hurry.

[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]

:flare: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]

:flare: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?:alien:

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]

:flare: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? :)

:lol:

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.

:D

I'm looking forward to meeting you soon.

[Gladys]

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"... since the object of the Party has always been simply power for power's sake, I can't call it socialism.

Accepting that Ingsoc did not evolve from socialism, Oceania's totalitarian regime almost certainly evolved from English democracy with its rigid class structure. Set as it is in London, 1984 likely deals with totalitarian tendencies in the West, and in particular the threat of invasive technologies, secrecy, repression and propaganda (now euphemistically tagged 'spin'). Geographically, Oceania excludes all the historical strongholds of totalitarianism.

Besides, the book is hardly a critique of communism. The heyday of communist sympathies in the West ended with World War II, except for a remnant of party die-hards. The threat of a world dominated by communist ideology was fading fast by the late 1940's, and Stalin was a wretched advertisement for its creed.

Living in the UK, Orwell (like Paul Robeson in the USA) must have been painfully conscious of growing anti-communist hysteria, lies and repression in the West. After the publication of 1984, with anti-communism at fever pitch, he would have been guarded when speaking publicly about politically sensitive themes implicit in the book, such as the invasive, repressive and anti-democratic measures by taken by an Oceania government based in London. With or without Orwell's explicit endorsement, the book speaks for itself: even democracies are corruptible!

[Leonard_K]

You strike me as a bit of a Syme.

:D

I'm looking forward to meeting you soon.

:thumbs_up No. I'm not Syme. Syme was consciously orthodox which conflicted with, isn't it what Freud called, his super-ego? He couldn't suppress his unconscious conflicts with IngSoc. That's why showing any kind of neurosis, nervous tick etc was dangerous. I'm conscious of my un-orthodoxy

I would say I'm one of the underground Brotherhood but I think they had that vision of perfecting man which I don't share.

I might be a top-hatted capitalist but they were certainly wiped out in the '40s.

No. The reason the Party tolerates me is my phenomenal stamina with the girls in pornsec. :blush:

-----

I don't know what you "pretty strongly disagree with." I think that's just duckspeak.

Socialism is in the spectrum of man-made visions about perfecting man. It requires control of men by other men. Sometimes it is to the benign side of communism or fascism with a small hill, rather than a mountain of corpses.

Orwell as a good person buys into the socialist vision but recognizes that it is capricious. He thinks erroneously that mankind has or very soon will solve all problems with allocation and creation of wealth.

But because government is the power of some men over others he knows that the power itself can be the vision.

He knows that this impulse, power for power's sake, exists in us and only wonders if technology enables its capacity to overwhelm all other visions. That is the theme of 1984.

[The Atheist]

Accepting that Ingsoc did not evolve from socialism, Oceania's totalitarian regime almost certainly evolved from English democracy with its rigid class structure.

...

even democracies are corruptible!

I agree on both of those - Orwell had long had declared war on the class system.


I don't know what you "pretty strongly disagree with." I think that's just duckspeak.

Euphemism, for "I think you're 100% wrong."

:D

Any political system can be corrupted because power is involved. We agree that that's what the book is about - I just don't go along with your suggestion that Orwell was using socialism as a basis for anything other than the system to pervert for 1984.

[Gladys]

Are 'the thought police' and Charrington members of the Inner Party?

[The Atheist]

Are 'the thought police' and Charrington members of the Inner Party?

Yes. Purity is essential at that level.

[bazarov]

I can't be Winston - I am smarter then him. Besides, I know how you think! :lol: When you invent Room 201 let me try it.

[bazarov]

I can't be Winston - I am smarter then him. Besides, I know how you think! :lol: When you invent Room 201 let me try it.

[The Atheist]

I can't be Winston - I am smarter then him. Besides, I know how you think! :lol: When you invent Room 201 let me try it.

:lol:

[TheLonelyQueen]

As I read the last few pages of the book, I found myself disagreeing with some of O'Brien's points. He says that his main goal is to erase all feelings except for hatred. He also says that in order for the principles of Ingsoc to truly rule the world, all people in the world must become mindless.

But how can this be so?

In order for everyone to be mindless, he too must be mindless. How would the party be efficiently run? Also, as I was reading through Winston's interrogation, I began to wonder who O'Brien trusts. He can't possibly be the only one to know the things that he does. Does anyone give HIM orders? And even if anyone does share the same amount of power that O'Brien does, he can't be okay with it. He strives for complete power.

[Gladys]

He also says that in order for the principles of Ingsoc to truly rule the world, all people in the world must become mindless.

All the world except, of course, the Inner Party elite of which O'Brien is a member.