kev67
09-08-2012, 06:02 PM
In volume 2, chapter 9, Goldstein's book explains that the purpose of the war is to destroy the produce of everybody's work. Before mechanization it was not necessary because the majority of the population had to work so hard just to feed themselves. Only a small surplus was produced which could be acquired, one way or another, by the ruling elite. The Inner Party leadership do not want increased productivity made possible by mechanization to improve the prosperity of the masses, because they have cynically calculated that would threaten their position at the top of society. Similar processes have occurred in Eurasia and Eastasia and all three power blocks have established an understanding. They fight, but they do not genuinely try to defeat each other.
I wonder whether this economic system would be sustainable long term. The closest regime I can think of to those described in 1984 is North Korea, but they have not actually fought a war with anyone for over fifty years (so far as I know), although they sabre-rattle a lot. I suppose you could argue that during the Cold War, a lot of industrial production was dedicated to armament manufacture, even though there was little direct fighting between the super powers. It's been said that military spending eventually broke the Soviet Union, especially after Ronnie Reagan upped the ante with the Star Wars project.
I wonder whether this economic system would be sustainable long term. The closest regime I can think of to those described in 1984 is North Korea, but they have not actually fought a war with anyone for over fifty years (so far as I know), although they sabre-rattle a lot. I suppose you could argue that during the Cold War, a lot of industrial production was dedicated to armament manufacture, even though there was little direct fighting between the super powers. It's been said that military spending eventually broke the Soviet Union, especially after Ronnie Reagan upped the ante with the Star Wars project.