Primeval, tribal solidarity on a grand scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindel
Printable View
Primeval, tribal solidarity on a grand scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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.
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? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard_K
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard_K
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.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard_K
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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!
: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-orthodoxyQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
I agree on both of those - Orwell had long had declared war on the class system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Euphemism, for "I think you're 100% wrong."Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard_K
: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.
Are 'the thought police' and Charrington members of the Inner Party?
Yes. Purity is essential at that level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
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.
All the world except, of course, the Inner Party elite of which O'Brien is a member.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLonelyQueen