The eventual fall of Oceania

After my completion of George Orwell's book, 1984 i took into great consideration Orwell's ideas on unending government due to totalitarianism and perpetual war. I believe a government enduring in this state is impossible to sustain.

Like Cardinal Richelieu of France, Oceania is unable to survive as an island unto itself. Richelieu practiced Mercantilism in its strictest sense by concentrating his efforts in exporting little or no gold outside the country. Producing everything internally proved to be nearly impossible and France was thrown into further poverty. While Orwell was diligent in his planning the boundaries of his countries, particularly paying attention to the basic needs for every country to produce essential goods, a number of Oceania's natural resources will be eventually expelled. This would cause for an actual war based on resources, completely changing the staged wars currently in progress.

If the countries are allied among each other, their boundaries actually a deception to keep populations scared and patriotic, the previous is still valid. For these countries to maintain heavy industry and a continuous war extensive enough to capture the imagination and production capability of the masses is ridiculous. Eventually there would be a massive shortage of goods and the breakdown of Oceania's policies. During the height of the USSR there was a subsidization of coal and other production goods for similar reasons stated in the book. The coal was the peoples coal, and factories consumed liberal amount of coal and had no environmental control. This way of life would not be able to continue.

The lack of production goods would be catastrophic to Oceania. The fear machine that the countries have built would halt, calling for the end of 'rocket bombing' fear in the city, the dispatching of troops, and the end of military production meant to occupy Oceania's citizens. This would eventually lead to the governments failure to control, and observe its citizens.

Orwell's idea of a perpetual government are genius. (Un) Fortunately this idea is merely a pipe dream. Much like socialist USSR, it works on paper but is to complex in construction, to simple in application for it to control entire continents successfully and completely. It would take centuries of human training to evolve our consciousness to accept this situation as a norm.

I disagree entirely and think you've neglected a couple of very important points:

While Oceania was at war with one, it would be at peace with the other - of Eastasia & Eurasia. I think it's a safe bet that trade would continue between the peaceful sides - if indeed, the war actually existed.

Given that, I'm quite certain no material needs would be unfulfilled.

Accordingly, there's really no threat, interior or exterior which the Party cannot just squash. The time frame to "purity" is of little relevance since opposition is impossible.

This why a comparison with USSR won't work in 1984, the system and situation of Oceania creates an entirely different scenario, having many luxuries denied to USSR, either geographically or technologically.

Atheist, I have to agree with you! :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitstar

Orwell's idea of a perpetual government are genius. (Un) Fortunately this idea is merely a pipe dream. Much like socialist USSR, it works on paper but is to complex in construction, to simple in application for it to control entire continents successfully and completely. It would take centuries of human training to evolve our consciousness to accept this situation as a norm.

---

That never worked in USSR, and worked perfectly in Orwell's 1984. Stalin or anyone else would NEVER trained them and Party did it without any problem.

For these countries to maintain heavy industry and a continuous war extensive enough to capture the imagination and production capability of the masses is ridiculous. Eventually there would be a massive shortage of goods and the breakdown of Oceania's policies.

Don't you get it? These countries are not at war--they are in cahoots! They all pretend to be at war so that they can control their citizens through fear of an unseen enemy. None of the battles ever take place on Oceania's territory; the rocket bombs dropped on the prole district are dropped by BB. The three superstates cooperate to provide one another with needed resources and send proles to be "enemy soldiers" who are publicly hanged so tht the charade of a war seems more real to the citizens.

Read the chapter from The Book (Orwell part 2, chapter 9) that explains War is Peace and it will make more sense.

I think the situation in Orwell's book is entirely possible. It is up to us--the proles--to make sure it does not happen. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, brought us closer to an Oceanic state than any country has been since WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coco

Don't you get it? These countries are not at war--they are in cahoots! They all pretend to be at war so that they can control their citizens through fear of an unseen enemy.

---

O no the war is very real. Real in the sense that the nations armies go out to kill one another. The only thing that is not real about the war is that the countries are not trying to overtake each other. The war is their idea of recycling. If they are able to sustain a war, they can A. scare the population, B. maintain a steady production or war materials to occupy and vitalize the economy.

But there is one factor that keeps the world for turning into 1984 and complicated 1984 from achieving realism. Religion. I don't have time to explain it now, but every single group of people, on every continent have a belief in a religion and no government has yet to completely wipe out religion in their territory. Nothing is stronger then an idea, except a better idea and i believe the proles would unite in religion,

To Coco, I don't think you understood the War is peace chapter in Book Two.
What it did was point out that the different supernations were merely trying to set up false friendships with one another while placing nuclear bombs around the countries to destroy them. the problem is that all the countries have the same strategy and are never allied with each other to succeed. It's quite ridiculous but that's orwell. As for Splitstar, the idea that oceania and the other nations would eventually detroy themselves from lack of goods and other necessaties is possible but not likely. They have mass population working constantly, especially since thay are all in different time zones. Oceania also has a heavy advantage owning such productive and bountiful places like north america and Northern africa. it is very possible that they may always be in perpetual war. but thats only looking at the situation from the supplies. as for religon, it could be possible. orwell expressed continually through the book that the future belonged to the proles who could love purely unlike the souless party members. I don't beleive that the proles will rise up by themselves, although i think they will play a key role in the revolution. at the end of the book two small things happened, one of them was parsons appearing in the ministry of love for chanting 'down with big brother' in his sleep. the other was when winston claimed that the human spirit could not be kept down and manipulated forver. parsons capture proved this. i beleive that a party member will come to their sense and lead the proles in a revolution that will change the world. because, as you put it, nothing is stronger than an idea

There are a few interesting points you raise. Firstly I don’t think the three powers are aligned in a conventional sense (like Britain/US with close economic and cultural ties) but the alliances are merely ‘non-aggression pacts’ used to create temporary cease-fires to buy time to manoeuvre. I think that the economies were entirely self-sufficient. At first this may seem unlikely or impossible but if we bear in mind that the Party has complete economic control, it can, therefore, also control demand. If a particular resource becomes unavailable due to territorial loss or simple depletion, the party can engineer demand so that the resources, or commodities produced from it are no longer required. This can then be blamed on whomever the Party sees fit. (Goldstein, Eurasia, Eastasia). However the point about depletion or resources is valid. It should be born in mind that the idea of non-renewable resources barely figured in economic thinking of the time that the novel was written and concepts like ‘peak oil’ were not even on the horizon. I think it would be inevitable that, eventually, non-renewable resources would become far scarcer and could, quite possibly, lead to genuine economically driven warfare for territory. Alternatively, the party could just change that nature of society and production to account for this depletion and maintain power.

“Accordingly, there's really no threat, interior or exterior which the Party cannot just squash. The time frame to "purity" is of little relevance since opposition is impossible”

I am inclined to agree with this, I think that was what Orwell was trying to portray

“O no the war is very real”

I also get the impression that it is more or less irrelevant that the war is actually happening. (However, I think it is) It is simply enough for the Party that it is believed to be happening and, as they control collective thought or public discourse, the war will continue as long as the Party wants or need it to (i.e. indefinitely). The war is simply a tool to control the citizens of Oceania. I think Orwell, through the Book, (can anyone confirm this?) says somewhere that the Party may even control the entire world and it suits their purpose to divide it into imaginary (or even actual) states in order to create the pre-requisite enemy. But this doesn’t really make a difference, the Party controls collective reality and the ‘war’ helps them do this. Externalities are irrelevant as the Party controls the entire world of the citizens of Oceania, there is no point of reference. I think this is interesting because it raises the question of whether reality exists independent of human consciousness.

Victor Hugo said ‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.’ I think this is relevant when discussing if the Party will ever fail. I particularly like the point about Parson’s capture. I know it is a corny line, but ‘the only thing constant is change’. It is inevitable that, at some point, the Party will fail somehow. I think Environmental factors may precipitate this but I like Loque’s suggestion that Winston’s claim about the Human Spirit may be of greater importance. There is another passage which also talks about the human spirit, or at least humanity. Winston is remembering his mother; ‘it would not have occurred to her that an action which is ineffectual thereby becomes meaningless. He perceives the ‘the terrible thing the Party had done was to persuade you that mere impulses, mere feeling were of no account.’ [Part II chapter VII] I think that this suggests the inherent weakness of the Party. That Parsons, one of the best exponents of ‘goodthink,’ would still have committed underlying, subconscious thoughtcrime. The only reason doublethink can exist is through mental discipline, it is a conscious mental action. I would suggest that it is impossible to discipline the subconscious, which is exhibited through dreams, or the primal. Instinct can be repressed but not eradicated. Any thoughts?

“but there is one factor that keeps the world for turning into 1984 and complicated 1984 from achieving realism. Religion.”

I would suggest that BB serves as the religious or messianic figure. All good is derived from him. Goldstein is the Anti-Christ, upon whom all evil is blamed. Interestingly, I think these figure bridge the gap between political ideology and spiritual philosophy, what are your thoughts?

It is said in 'The Book' that there are three countries controlling most of the world, three real political powers. It goes into detail on how all three of these political structures mirror eachother. So although the party doesn't control the whole world, and The Book even infers that each Political entity knows why their totalitarianism work, and would never make a serious attempt at destroying one of the other two.

So in that way, this war is not what we know as war. No real goals are attempted, it's just a huge hamster-wheel that each of the three countries mutually consent to keep spinning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurtDunn

It is said in 'The Book' that there are three countries controlling most of the world, three real political powers. It goes into detail on how all three of these political structures mirror eachother. So although the party doesn't control the whole world, and The Book even infers that each Political entity knows why their totalitarianism work, and would never make a serious attempt at destroying one of the other two.

So in that way, this war is not what we know as war. No real goals are attempted, it's just a huge hamster-wheel that each of the three countries mutually consent to keep spinning.

---

Kurt, the problem is The Book is artificial, manufactured by the Party. O'Brien contributed to its construction. They can say what they want, give any image of reality that suits their purpose....

I saw that Goldstein's book was also George Orwell's grand reveal: 'This is how the world of 1984 works.' I think we can take most of what is said there as true.

I see what you are saying and i agree The Book does do this to a certain extent. However I think The Book serves more to expound, in detail, Orwell's criticism of Authoritarian or Totalitarian Socialism and, to a lesser, extent his take on Marxist theory (particularly the concept of revolution originating only from the middle class and the division of society into high, middle and low) but I also thought that the idea that 'they' wrote The Book reinforces the concept that the Party has complete control on external reality and that it will soon have control of 'inner space' or the individuals mind and thought processes. Perhaps it could also serve as a kind of reference book or resource for senior members of the Inner Party, particularly the Thought Police, who could use it as a tool for manipulation of thought during the 'treatment' of thought criminals. In creating a picture of reality that seems logical and apparently certain, then destroying this by revealing (or claiming) that The Book is fictitious, they destroy the thought criminal’s perception of the status quo. This would make them more susceptible to accepting the Party’s world view as they no longer have an alternative or a reliable point of comparison.

But regardless, to go back to an earlier point, I don't think that it matters one way or the other. The important thing is that for the Party members (and to a lesser extent, the Proles), the war is very real and this shows the control of the party. Thoughts?