Proles

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-07-2007, 03:45 PM
bazarov

Proles

Name proles comes from latin work for worker; used also by Karl Marx as a proletariat referring on working class. Party is using them as a labour in factories; actually that's their only purpose. They are uneducated and stupid, and Party doesn't wish that to change. They are not aware that history existed, that there once was a free will, free ideas and freedom of speech. They are kept in constant fear and they believe that Party keeps them from safe from Oceania's and Eastasia's treat. Party does not control their way of life like they control Party members. They can have friends, family, lovers and sex is actually welcomed: more kids will produce more labours for factories.

Keeping them in fear and uneducated assures peace to Party and removes any possibility of rebellion. They cannot understand what is really happening, that everything looks like Party wants it to look, and not like it really is. But, like Winston said, hope is in the proles; they are the only one who can change something because there is no way that any Party member would act against Party.

P.S. Any comments and ideas are welcome; unanswered questions also.
11-02-2008, 08:21 PM
burmesedays

One more thing you missed from 1984. Like the outer and inner party, there are people who are a blot in the parties ideology. It was even said briefly in one sentence of 1984 that the more dangerous members of the proles are eliminated.

They also have the thought police amongst them to pick out that very such thing. Just some things I'd like to point out.

I think that no government can completely hold down a majority of a population, so they grant freedoms to the majority, while keeping the main threats (party members) under tight lock.

Even in 50 years in the novel, when they say that newspeak will replace anything else, the proles will still have their extra priviledges. Their are many things in real life that could have inspired George Orwell of this, such as free shops to train the unemployed certain skills. These services weren't necessarily provided to help these people, but more to keep these people down and content.

I believe that in almost every society (of course to a much much lesser extent), this occurs.
11-05-2008, 07:09 PM
emeli351

Does the party underestimate the proles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Name proles comes from latin work for worker; used also by Karl Marx as a proletariat referring on working class. Party is using them as a labour in factories; actually that's their only purpose. They are uneducated and stupid, and Party doesn't wish that to change. They are not aware that history existed, that there once was a free will, free ideas and freedom of speech. They are kept in constant fear and they believe that Party keeps them from safe from Oceania's and Eastasia's treat. Party does not control their way of life like they control Party members. They can have friends, family, lovers and sex is actually welcomed: more kids will produce more labours for factories.

Keeping them in fear and uneducated assures peace to Party and removes any possibility of rebellion. They cannot understand what is really happening, that everything looks like Party wants it to look, and not like it really is. But, like Winston said, hope is in the proles; they are the only one who can change something because there is no way that any Party member would act against Party.

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

Do you think the party underestimates what the proles could do?
Its true that they are uneducated and unaware of whats going on, but if the proles ever wisened up or someone like winston wanted to plan an uprising in the prole section, they could because there are no telescreens down there.
11-05-2008, 07:11 PM
emeli351

Do you think the party underestimates what the proles could do?
Its true that they are uneducated and unaware of whats going on, but if the proles ever wisened up or someone like winston wanted to plan an uprising in the prole section, they could because there are no telescreens down there.
11-05-2008, 07:21 PM
slimjohnny14

I feel that you are exactly right about all of it you must have really liked this book and I would not mind to chat with you about it..

Thanks, Jb
11-05-2008, 09:24 PM
Princess Belle

Comment to burmesedays..

What exactly do you mean by 'no government can hold down the majority' and where do you see this happening in societys today?
I think that free classes for the unemployed to learn are more of educating the majority, which Big Brother did not do with the proles.
It also appears that the Big Brother kept the Party members under such tight control because they knew too much.... I wonder how many of the inner party members actually were truely dedicated to the Big Brother cause and not to their own power addiction...

:)
11-05-2008, 09:59 PM
The Student17

Why does Big Brother seperate the proles from everyone else. Even though he is trying to make everyone the same by making the working class wear the same clothes?
11-05-2008, 11:43 PM
burmesedays

I think I mostly wrote that in a different mindset, because now i can't find any clear examples of present society doing this.
11-07-2008, 12:04 AM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Student17

Why does Big Brother seperate the proles from everyone else. Even though he is trying to make everyone the same by making the working class wear the same clothes?

There have to be proles to tend the farms and grow the crops. Orwell is vague about population size of each group and it's hard to figure out the economic workings of Oceania, but I think if you imagine all menial occupations - miners, labourers, drainlayers, etc - being proles, you won't be too far off.
02-24-2009, 01:36 AM
delta-fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by emeli351

Do you think the party underestimates what the proles could do?
Its true that they are uneducated and unaware of whats going on, but if the proles ever wisened up or someone like winston wanted to plan an uprising in the prole section, they could because there are no telescreens down there.

The Party knows exactly what the proles can do- that is why they have so many more priveleges over the party members. This way, they will never want to rebel, because their lives are so good.
02-27-2009, 01:30 PM
bazarov

No. Proles are stupid and they will never realize that their life is bad and that it could be better. And that's why they will never rebel.
03-02-2009, 02:41 AM
delta-fan

^^^I don't think so. There is no biological difference between the Party members and the proles. The proles are just as intellegent as the rest of Oceania, this is why the Party give them everything they will ever want...

Why would you try and upheave a leader that gives you everything you want?
03-02-2009, 03:14 AM
adwara1

Proles have some freedom compared to the rest of the party members. I dont remember if orwell mentioning but i think party members including winston are scared even to write or think against the party. If you have your basic necessities fulfilled and have freedom of thought you can acheive great many things this is the reason why Winston said that the only hope lies in the proles.
03-02-2009, 05:53 AM
wat??

Quote:

Originally Posted by delta-fan

^^^I don't think so. There is no biological difference between the Party members and the proles. The proles are just as intellegent as the rest of Oceania, this is why the Party give them everything they will ever want...

Why would you try and upheave a leader that gives you everything you want?

The proles do not have everything they will ever want.

Also the proles are generally unintelligent uneducated workers, (the exceptions to this rule are eliminated) you are insinuating that intelligence is entirely dictated by genetics, not so. The brain is a muscle which has to be developed.
03-03-2009, 10:47 PM
delta-fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by wat??

The proles do not have everything they will ever want.

Also the proles are generally unintelligent uneducated workers, (the exceptions to this rule are eliminated) you are insinuating that intelligence is entirely dictated by genetics, not so. The brain is a muscle which has to be developed.

That's not what I meant at all. What I'm trying to say is that just because the Proles are uneducated, it doesn't mean that they are stupid. You don't need an education to have common sense.

What do the Proles not have? They have families, friends, jobs, pubs, happiness and normaility in their lives. That have it good, compared to the Outer Party members if you ask me!
03-04-2009, 04:25 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by delta-fan

That's not what I meant at all. What I'm trying to say is that just because the Proles are uneducated, it doesn't mean that they are stupid. You don't need an education to have common sense.

No, they're stupid.

Orwell is careful to note that any prole who was likely to have enough brains to figure it out would be liquidated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by delta-fan

What do the Proles not have? They have families, friends, jobs, pubs, happiness and normaility in their lives. That have it good, compared to the Outer Party members if you ask me!

Happiness born of ignorance.

They are used as cattle/beasts of burden, they have no rights, commodities are always in short supply (look what happens when a few saucepans arrive) and they suffer rocket attacks.

Orwell doesn't spell out the deprivation of prole life, because it's not essential, but he makes it clear that while proles have some freedoms, their lives are generally far harsher than even an Outer Party member.
03-05-2009, 02:03 AM
wat??

But the outer party members have unhappiness born of knowledge, and fear.
03-05-2009, 09:20 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by wat??

But the outer party members have unhappiness born of knowledge, and fear.

No, they use Doublethink and accept what happy lives they lead. The ones unable to do that are in Room 101. Outer Party members have no knowledge outside of that imparted by the Party.
03-06-2009, 08:16 AM
wat??

I don't think so, I think that outer party members are controlled to some extent by fear. In my opinion the character Tom Parsons symbolizes this. On the outside Tom Parsons is fiercely loyal to the party and appears to accept all of the parties doctrines and ideas without a thought; but somewhere in his conscious he realises the party is wrong and so 'in his sleep' he chants "Down with Big Brother".
03-09-2009, 05:06 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by wat??

I don't think so, I think that outer party members are controlled to some extent by fear. In my opinion the character Tom Parsons symbolizes this. On the outside Tom Parsons is fiercely loyal to the party and appears to accept all of the parties doctrines and ideas without a thought; but somewhere in his conscious he realises the party is wrong and so 'in his sleep' he chants "Down with Big Brother".

Like you said, those are exceptions that are eliminated.
03-09-2009, 03:10 PM
wat??

Well obviously they do not all chant "down with big brother" in their sleep, but I think it would be a fair assumption that they all harbor secret doubts and grievances towards the party, which are controlled, almost entirely, by fear.
03-09-2009, 08:26 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by wat??

Well obviously they do not all chant "down with big brother" in their sleep, but I think it would be a fair assumption that they all harbor secret doubts and grievances towards the party, which are controlled, almost entirely, by fear.

That's why Doublethink exists.
04-23-2009, 04:53 PM
wat??

Doublethink is not going to work on a subconcious level.
05-09-2009, 06:37 PM
Stargazer86

Quote:

Originally Posted by wat??

Doublethink is not going to work on a subconcious level.

I wonder though if it does after a time? Maybe not for everyone, but at least for some people. Most of the adults in the book were born before or around the time of the Revolution so they have some conciousness of something being different or not right even if it lies in suppressed memories. So what about the children? That's all they've ever known and all that's existed from before they were even born. Which is what makes them so dangerous. Especially as the generations go on and doublethink and Newspeak becomes more refined and mainstream, not just something that's still being developed.

As far as the discussion of the Proles, I think I would much rather have been a Prole than a Party member. Even the Party members had crappy living conditions. I would rather have had the freedom to sing out on the street if I so chose without people thinking it odd or suspect. Like the lady hanging diapers in the alley...at least she had that moment of joy to herself. And the shopkeeper with all his knickknacks. It was not odd at all for him to collect and sell these things, but it even states that Winston was hesistant to buy some of this as it would draw too much attention to himself. That in itself shows that the Proles have much more freedom in these little things, outdated things from a history that no longer existed.
05-15-2009, 04:54 AM
Gladys

A prole uprising?
Quote:

Originally Posted by emeli351

... if the proles ever wisened up or someone like winston wanted to plan an uprising in the prole section, they could because there are no telescreens down there.

Having just finished 1984, I've a few questions on the proles.
1. Are there no telescreens? Winston learnt otherwise. Even in his flat at Victory Mansions, concealed telescreens must have monitored Winston in his 'private' alcove.
2. How many, so called proles, are party members in disguise. For instance, the 'prole', Mr Charrington, was not as he seemed. In communist East Germany, one in four proles was a Stasi agent. Is the ratio in Oceania, one in two?
3. Therefore, is the narrator really infallible and omniscient?
4. In 1984 we have the inner and outer party and proles. There is another category: 'the subject peoples of the disputed territories'. What surveillance occurs there? Do these 'most nearly rational' people offer a glimmer of hope?
05-15-2009, 04:25 PM
The Atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys

Having just finished 1984, I've a few questions on the proles.

Are there no telescreens? Winston learnt otherwise. Even in his flat at Victory Mansions, concealed telescreens must have monitored Winston in his 'private' alcove.
1. No, I don't think so.
  
  That he went there was enough.
  
  The proles, in almost all cases are not watched individually. The odd one would come to the notice of the Party and be eliminated.
  
  Quote:
  
  Originally Posted by Gladys
2. How many, so called proles, are party members in disguise. For instance, the 'prole', Mr Charrington, was not as he seemed. In communist East Germany, one in four proles was a Stasi agent. Is the ratio in Oceania, one in two?

Nowhere near that high.

As East Germany found out, it isn't economically possible to keep doing that. The idea of 1984 was more Pol Pot's style - crush the proles into a sub-human lifestyle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

Therefore, is the narrator really infallible and omniscient?

Always!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

In 1984 we have the inner and outer party and proles. There is another category: 'the subject peoples of the disputed territories'. What surveillance occurs there? Do these 'most nearly rational' people offer a glimmer of hope?

No, they're slave populations.

Africa is kept bereft of technology, so no progress is possible. It is stuck forever in the 17th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, they're stupid.

Orwell is careful to note that any prole who was likely to have enough brains to figure it out would be liquidated.

Happiness born of ignorance.

They are used as cattle/beasts of burden, they have no rights, commodities are always in short supply (look what happens when a few saucepans arrive) and they suffer rocket attacks.

Orwell doesn't spell out the deprivation of prole life, because it's not essential, but he makes it clear that while proles have some freedoms, their lives are generally far harsher than even an Outer Party member.

My initial thought was that, maybe the ones who do have brains and are intelligent just know to keep quiet about it. They're not supervised by the Thought Police or the telescreens. But then I thought, maybe they are. The owner of the shop turned out to be a member of the Thought Police. So were the proles just as well monitored and just allowed more simple freedoms? Perhaps there wasn't as rigorous surveillance and not as many telescreens, but as I recall, there was a telescreen in the upstairs of that shop.

How are the Proles lives harsher than that of the Party members? The Outer Party members also lived in dirty, undesirable homes. What did the Outer Party members have that made it better than being a Prole? From what I read, I would have rather been a Prole and been allowed simple freedoms and joys.

It doesn't make sense to me. If you know someone's stupid then why do you not watch them? It seems to me you would want to watch them for fear they would not follow the laws and/or take matters into their own hands. I agree that the proles are stupid, but they make up 80% of the population. That seems like they could be considered at least somewhat of a threat and would be watched more closely. Why does the government not watch them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 20soccer12

It doesn't make sense to me. If you know someone's stupid then why do you not watch them? It seems to me you would want to watch them for fear they would not follow the laws and/or take matters into their own hands. I agree that the proles are stupid, but they make up 80% of the population. That seems like they could be considered at least somewhat of a threat and would be watched more closely. Why does the government not watch them?

The Party looks on them like you look on some homeless crazy drunkers 99 years old - no threat for your safety.

I'm wondering if the proles make up 80% of the population, then the Party only induces its control over a small portion of society? Because we get insight on Winston's perspective, we feel the power of the Party overarching all of society..

The proles live as though in the past so..is society really that bad for everyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mou

I'm wondering if the proles make up 80% of the population, then the Party only induces its control over a small portion of society? Because we get insight on Winston's perspective, we feel the power of the Party overarching all of society..

The proles live as though in the past so..is society really that bad for everyone?

The past the proles live in isn't the one you'd pick.

Analogous times in human existence would be:

The Great Russian proletariat.
German subjects during WWII.
The peasants ih Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Lack of direct surveillance and minimal freedoms don't make for a state of being anyone would really want to achieve.

It's important to realise that Orwell's proles were not some kind of happy-go-luck manual workers, but beasts of burden - like a team of oxen, endlessly ploughing infinite fields.

Inner Party was the place to be.

:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The past the proles live in isn't the one you'd pick.

Analogous times in human existence would be:

The Great Russian proletariat.
German subjects during WWII.
The peasants ih Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Lack of direct surveillance and minimal freedoms don't make for a state of being anyone would really want to achieve.

It's important to realise that Orwell's proles were not some kind of happy-go-luck manual workers, but beasts of burden - like a team of oxen, endlessly ploughing infinite fields.

Inner Party was the place to be.

:)

Hm, I see. Although it seems that Winston perceive that they are the only people of hope and, it almost feels like he is envious of them because they have the kind of liberty and the rights that he never has--even if still very minimal. Take this quote for example:

"Held apart by the walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same--people who never learned to to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world" (220)

This is a way to analyze how ignorance is strength. If I'm not mistaken, the proles are the ones who are the most in touch with reality. Each day is the same for them, and the continuous war is meaningless. They have the chance overthrow the Party because their lives preserve little left of the past life there. And now understanding how much of the population the make up, the Party never really wiped out history they way they intend to.

What do you think Orwell is trying to address here?

I'm trying to understand from what I read so far :) I appreciate your opinions!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mou

They have the chance overthrow the Party because their lives preserve little left of the past life there. And now understanding how much of the population the make up, the Party never really wiped out history they way they intend to.

Powerless, with dissenters liquidated, the proles pose little threat to Ingsoc: their history is unimportant. Only the middle class, the Outer Party, threatens.

So Winston looks to the proles with unfounded hope.

I disagree, the proles argue over stupid stuff like pots and pans. Also proles are consumed over money and nothing else. The proles do not see life and live life, they cannot even question what they are fed by all the propaganda. Like all others they do not show emotions other than argument with each other. So in my opinion the proles have it worse than the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emeli351

Do you think the party underestimates what the proles could do?
Its true that they are uneducated and unaware of whats going on, but if the proles ever wisened up or someone like winston wanted to plan an uprising in the prole section, they could because there are no telescreens down there.

I think the Party does underestimate what the Proles could do. The fact that they are not under surveillance proves how much the Party believes they are harmless. If they were to rebel then the most certainly would be watched like the rest of the society.

The proles may not evn have a common sense becuase when all do for their lives is drink at the pubs and hope for the their lottery ticket to win they may have a different perspective on life. If they were educated and knew what was happening around them I'm sure a prole revolt would of happened earlier in the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markerboy

I disagree, the proles argue over stupid stuff like pots and pans. Also proles are consumed over money and nothing else. The proles do not see life and live life, they cannot even question what they are fed by all the propaganda. Like all others they do not show emotions other than argument with each other. So in my opinion the proles have it worse than the others.

Are cattle unhappy? I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle - you're missing that the proles are of low intelligence, and are happy with small pleasures. They aren't really consumed by money - they have enough to get by on, just that items are deliberately kept in short supply by the Party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokool4puppets

I think the Party does underestimate what the Proles could do. The fact that they are not under surveillance proves how much the Party believes they are harmless. If they were to rebel then the most certainly would be watched like the rest of the society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram

The proles may not evn have a common sense becuase when all do for their lives is drink at the pubs and hope for the their lottery ticket to win they may have a different perspective on life. If they were educated and knew what was happening around them I'm sure a prole revolt would of happened earlier in the story.

You also both need to take the lack of intellect among proles into account - and they are watched, just not to as great a degree as Party members.

Revolt is impossible - no leaders, no propagandists. Cattle.

The Proles cannot revolt as they are not educated and not aware of anything better. What reason would a prole have to revolt?

I feel as if that even though the proles may be uneducated, they are possibly still aware of their surroundings. I believe that the proles are greatly underestimated. If they were truly unhappy someone would have enough believe if themselves to say something. The proles are not under as strict of a watch that the rest of their society is, i belive that this is Orwell is foreshadowing with these details. But then again, its just a thought i have not finnished the book yet
:)

Since there are no telescreens someone like Winston could plan an uprising, couldn't he? Unless he thinks it's to risky because there are secret thought police among the proles. I would think that he could maybe start something of the sort but I'm just not sure. He says that eventually he will get vaporized so why not go out with a bang! Would be have time to educate the proles and get them on their way to an uprising?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 AM.