1984 and 2007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Actually, socialism would be the best system if only people would be fair enough to themselves and others but they aren't

---

I disagree. However noble the ideals may be, human nature will ruin in from lack of incentive, and the removal of human nature will turn the human into a drone. Great acheivements have never been made by drones unless a non-drone directed them, and this would be more of a totalitarian system anyway (I refer to the making of the Pyramids by slaves under the direction of pharoahs). Socialism is pretty enough, but I would prefer to have freedom. There is no self-expression in it, as well, and I would think that anyone on a literature website would dislike the idea of limiting of expression as much as I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I disagree. However noble the ideals may be, human nature will ruin in from lack of incentive, and the removal of human nature will turn the human into a drone. Great acheivements have never been made by drones unless a non-drone directed them, and this would be more of a totalitarian system anyway (I refer to the making of the Pyramids by slaves under the direction of pharoahs). Socialism is pretty enough, but I would prefer to have freedom. There is no self-expression in it, as well, and I would think that anyone on a literature website would dislike the idea of limiting of expression as much as I do.

---

Sorry, but it sounds as though you don't actually know what socialism is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I disagree. However noble the ideals may be, human nature will ruin in from lack of incentive, and the removal of human nature will turn the human into a drone. Great acheivements have never been made by drones unless a non-drone directed them, and this would be more of a totalitarian system anyway (I refer to the making of the Pyramids by slaves under the direction of pharoahs). Socialism is pretty enough, but I would prefer to have freedom. There is no self-expression in it, as well, and I would think that anyone on a literature website would dislike the idea of limiting of expression as much as I do.

---

I said it would be the best, I am aware it's impossible.
Socialism is social regime; not a political, so lack of freedom actually (in theory) doesn't have a direct connection with socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Orwell knew it.

---

All proles are the same...

Wow, this is possibly the first time I’ve encountered other people with the same opinion as me. Maybe I stay on this forum for a while.

As for the original question, to me it seems as if there’s two “forces” in a society or civilization (I’m not sure what the correct word would be), one that pushes towards control and the other which pushes for anarchy. This is a natural effect of a society as the one governing wants more power and the people want more freedom. Throughout history this has always been the case. When the one governing has too much power, a revolution will occur (e.g. The French revolution) or just collapse (e.g. ancient Rome).

The problem previous authorities had, was that it was virtually impossible to control and monitor everybody but today’s development of technology has suddenly made it possible for just a few people to monitor everybody everywhere. At about the same time this became possible, the one governing got a perfect reason to increase surveillance, namely the “War on Terrorism”. After 9/11 the world became a much more dangerous place and the authorities did their job great in convincing most people they needed more surveillance. If anyone questions the surveillance the just say we need to offer our integrity for security. What I find most disturbing is the fact I’ve never said I rather want security instead of freedom.

I think I should point out though that I do not believe the problem is control, which is always needed for a society to exist. The problem is when the one governing has enough control to know if someone disagrees and the power to disappear him. If anyone is interested, I could try to translate an article I’ve written about this subject in which I "unfortunately" concluded that it seems Orwell was right after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aarrgg

. The problem is when the one governing has enough control to know if someone disagrees and the power to disappear him. If anyone is interested, I could try to translate an article I’ve written about this subject in which I "unfortunately" concluded that it seems Orwell was right after all.

---

true power is allowing people to disagree with you, and not losing your power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I disagree. However noble the ideals may be, human nature will ruin in from lack of incentive, and the removal of human nature will turn the human into a drone. Great acheivements have never been made by drones unless a non-drone directed them, and this would be more of a totalitarian system anyway (I refer to the making of the Pyramids by slaves under the direction of pharoahs). Socialism is pretty enough, but I would prefer to have freedom. There is no self-expression in it, as well, and I would think that anyone on a literature website would dislike the idea of limiting of expression as much as I do.

---

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with the atheist here (not that that's a bad thing). Socialism is at grass roots level a series of economic policies directed towards the redistribution of wealth - whether those policies are implemented authoritarianly or not is a different matter all together. Most socialists belive that true freedom comes form releasing people from the restrictions of the class system produced by capitalism. What Orwell does very cleverly is paints a picture of a supposedly socialist system that has swept away a class system, only to replace it with an infinately more rigid one.

If you want to know more about the difference between economics and authoritarianism I would recomend visiting www.politicalcompass.org, I found it very useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

true power is allowing people to disagree with you, and not losing your power.

---

I think Orwell would disagree with you Billyjack. The point of 1984 was to show a world where the government had complete control not only over people's lives, but their minds as well making it impossible to disagree with it - thus creating an indestructable system. Allowing people to disagree with you and still retaining power is not true power, it is the mark of an adept political mind that manipulates opinion.

I believe that it it only a matter of time before 1984 becomes a reality. Only when it becomes a reality, it will be far more advanced than what Orwell described.
Also, it will make sense to nearly everyone, we will believe that it is better for us.
To simply sit and think about the very real possibility and the great probability that we are drawing nearer and nearer to a power-driven society is simply amazing. The complexities of what may happen are overwhelming and interesting beyond belief.

Firstly that thought crimes are reflective of the patriot act, not hate crimes. hate crimes are hate crimes.

It is no question that orwellian world is imminent if not already permeating; I am reading Tim O'Brien's If I Die In a Combat Zone, from which I drew so many comparisons to the disintegration of thought, use of propaganda, preemptive war, etc., and many of those aspects can be applicable to America today because of the similarity in the nature by which Vietnam and Iraq have been carried out. It is really quite scary what can happen and how easily it can become a reality.