1984 in the eyes of a chinese reader

Well, i have to say 1984 is a bit more tedious than orwell's animal farm. this anti-utopian novel, in my opinion, is in no way to stand for socialism; on the contrary, it reflects disillusionment of the ex-zealot of communism.

and the most horrible notion i bore in mind when reading this novel is that, as a reader from china, i found most of its descriptions in the book were not imaginary to me at all. they are not dreamy utopia, bad or not. rather, they are my nation's authentic past and to some extent, ongoing daymare.

I read 1984 a couple months ago and I enjoyed it more then Brave New World of a similar genre but I had didn't know that China was that dominant and overpowering.

I think orwell like many people of his day was strongly anti communism, now communism in theory is an exceptional idea, just that it doesn't seem to work in practice, former ussr as an example. I think orwells book though anticomunist, could also warn of corruption and what happens when an ideal is corrupted.

Orwell was far from being an anti-communist. He was, in fact, trotskist. 1984 was just a way to show his deception and anger towards the Stalin-ruled URSS. Nevertheless, the story is not about communism, is about totalitarism.
And "communism doesn't work in practice"? A country with no industry, no qualifyed workers, without proper education, with a terrible wealth distribution and a completely useless high class in the zares became a world potency in 30 years. So, in other words, it took a hundred times less time than most of the developed countries (i.e. England, Germany, US, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuro_muckraker

Well, i have to say 1984 is a bit more tedious than orwell's animal farm. this anti-utopian novel, in my opinion, is in no way to stand for socialism; on the contrary, it reflects disillusionment of the ex-zealot of communism.

and the most horrible notion i bore in mind when reading this novel is that, as a reader from china, i found most of its descriptions in the book were not imaginary to me at all. they are not dreamy utopia, bad or not. rather, they are my nation's authentic past and to some extent, ongoing daymare.

---

I suppose you consider the CPC under Mao's authority, as the Big B in your country. But,referring to what you wrote about Orwell's writing is not a dreamy utopia and could be said as your nation's authentic past, I have different opinion. Ithink it doesn't really describe China (at all i perhaps). I mean with the cultural revolution, the great leap forward, and Mao's idea of strong socialist state and traditional chinese ideas (which at some time led to the establishment of the new bourgeois), and some other policies. But this is only IMHO

China is no longer a real communism country, the goverment is still a bit totalitarism though.
Now many older people in Russia miss the past.
What did Russian people get after the collapse of USSR? Freedom? Yeah, they get freedom to be prostitutes or join maffia.
I'm not a communist or socialist, I'm a big fan of democracy and freedom, but only when they are real. Only if justice is not really fullfilled through all the world, people will still keep dreaming.
I'm still kind of dreamer, I love this song as follow wrote by John Lenon:

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

John Lennon eh?

I agree that Russia was better under soviet dictatorship, as a whole, but the people were oppressed. now Russia is in a worse state, or atleast appears to be, other countries are just now starting to be able to see the corruption that existed in Russia, that is why it seems to be more corrupt than ever befor. And I think that is what Orwell was talking about, corruption of an ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

I agree that Russia was better under soviet dictatorship, as a whole, but the people were oppressed. now Russia is in a worse state, or atleast appears to be, other countries are just now starting to be able to see the corruption that existed in Russia, that is why it seems to be more corrupt than ever befor. And I think that is what Orwell was talking about, corruption of an ideal.

---

There's corruption everywhere. Corruption is sometimes linked to the perversion of an ideal, but not always, and not necessarily. IMO, it's a mistake to identify a socio-economic system for what is worth because of one (or several) bad government. Not only communism suffers from this. For example, if I were to judge democracy by the performance of the Latin governments in the last decades, I would have to conclude that it doesn't work. Of course, this would be wrong, so that's why simplified analysis shouldn't be made at all.

Lennon? I just wannn say I'm kind of dreamer and like Lennon's dream, no any hints to this topic.
And I'm not defending the system of USSR, I hate totalitarism and all dictators. I'm just wondering maybe Russia could get a better way to realize democracy. I've a question here, does socio-economic system inevitably result in ditatorship? Is it possible to achieve democracy and freedom based on socio-economic system.
You have to admit communism is not totally wrong as supposed to be, since at least communism once successfully eliminated prostitution, drugs, mafia and unemployment, which have never been fulfilled by capitalism, and I guess ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedSpirit

I've a question here, does socio-economic system inevitably result in ditatorship? Is it possible to achieve democracy and freedom based on socio-economic system.

---

I'm not following you here. Democracy and freedom can be achieved, under any socio economic system, provided the necessary conditions are met (which most of the times, is unlikely, under any SES).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedSpirit

You have to admit communism is not totally wrong as supposed to be, since at least communism once successfully eliminated prostitution, drugs, mafia and unemployment, which have never been fulfilled by capitalism, and I guess ever.

---

That's not entirely accurate. There were maffias in the USSR. High ranking officials of the government had complete control of the distribution of goods, and some of them behaved more or less in a gangster manner. Prostitution has existed since the dawn of time. I have serious doubts that anything or anyone can eliminate that (however, giving it a more proper treatment is possible). The elimination of unemployment (never completely of course, but keeping it at very low percentages) is perhaps one of communism's greatest merits, but the same thing can be achieved in a not so extreme context. Take the scandinavian countries, for instance, they have a socialism based economy, with a high level of participation of the estate in the economy, and the level of democracy and freedoms they have is unequalled in any part of the world.

hi, crisaor, Mao eliminated prostitution in China, which was revived in 80's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crisaor

The elimination of unemployment (never completely of course, but keeping it at very low percentages) is perhaps one of communism's greatest merits, but the same thing can be achieved in a not so extreme context. Take the scandinavian countries, for instance, they have a socialism based economy, with a high level of participation of the estate in the economy, and the level of democracy and freedoms they have is unequalled in any part of the world.

---

Cris, you were mentioning about the merrits of communism, yet you gave an example of socialist Scandinavian countries. As we all know, there's a difference between the two concepts. I dont know, perhaps there's a "revolutionary means" involved in those countries' economic system?

I believe that most political systems, like a true democracy, true communism or socialism or republic would all by utopian if it weren't for human nature getting involved... liek greed and power struggles and he's got a bigger toy then mine... after a couple of generations it might change... our wants and greedy nature could possible change but I don't think you can get there.

well Jester, just say it would never happened..

Quote:

---

our wants and greedy nature could possible change but I don't think you can get there.

---

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedSpirit

hi, crisaor, Mao eliminated prostitution in China, which was revived in 80's.

---

You mean literally, 0 prostitution??
What I mean is that it will always exist no matter what, but there can be a difference in quantity, so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

Cris, you were mentioning about the merrits of communism, yet you gave an example of socialist Scandinavian countries. As we all know, there's a difference between the two concepts. I dont know, perhaps there's a "revolutionary means" involved in those countries' economic system?

---

No, I said that some of the merits of communism can be achieved under other circumstances, and then I pointed out that example. I'm very aware of the difference. There's nothing revolutionary about scandinavian countries. They're just educated people with a great degree of honesty and capacity. They know that capitalism, when left free to do its bidding will always turn to market imperfections (monopolies, bad wealth distribution, unemployment, etc.), so they have the estate to regulate the economy. The difference between the ideal socialist estate and that of 1984, is that the first has an active role on the economy, but not on the lives of its citizens. The totalitarian estate proposed by Orwell intervenes in every affair, in the worst way possible. Thing is, nowadays, some of the stuff in 1984 happens in several countries, despite the fact that they're democracies. Sometimes, it isn't necessary to start a revolution to establish a dictatorship, as Orwell said, since that thing can be accoplished today by misinformation, wars, economic reforms, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crisaor

I'm not following you here. Democracy and freedom can be achieved, under any socio economic system, provided the necessary conditions are met (which most of the times, is unlikely, under any SES).

That's not entirely accurate. There were maffias in the USSR. High ranking officials of the government had complete control of the distribution of goods, and some of them behaved more or less in a gangster manner. Prostitution has existed since the dawn of time. I have serious doubts that anything or anyone can eliminate that (however, giving it a more proper treatment is possible). The elimination of unemployment (never completely of course, but keeping it at very low percentages) is perhaps one of communism's greatest merits, but the same thing can be achieved in a not so extreme context. Take the scandinavian countries, for instance, they have a socialism based economy, with a high level of participation of the estate in the economy, and the level of democracy and freedoms they have is unequalled in any part of the world.

---

About mafia- yes, actually the government supported and legalized (and was as bad as) mafia. (My grandfather was deported to Siberia in terrible conditions as were tens of thousands of other people. All was the job of the government.)

And unemployment- that actually meant that there was a great number of completely unnecessary jobs which were "done" anyway. Mostly people drank while working or stole something from the post. The sellers were completely rude and impolite (what the hell are you standing here. Are you buying something? If not, get the hell out of my sight. Be quicker, do you think that I want to wait forever. et cetera) No reason to be polite. No competition. Nobody cared. You got the same wage anyway. It was illegal not to have a job - but actually very few people were working. The elimination of unemployment actually was one of the reasons for alcoholism, goofing off and some other problems.

So, yes the commies got rid of unemployment but it was not a very good solution. I prefer the Scandinavian way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

So, yes the commies got rid of unemployment but it was not a very good solution. I prefer the Scandinavian way.

---

Oh Yes, who wouldn't prefer to live in a well established country with well established economy, and with government's guarantee to take care of you from the craddle to the grave. When the first time i read Anthony Giddens' The Third Way, i thought "well ok, the welfare state, the third way, and the socio-democratic thing is a brilliant idea". But I dont think all countries in this world have the resources to achieve the goal.

"I believe that most political systems, like a true democracy, true communism or socialism or republic would all by utopian if it weren't for human nature getting involved... liek greed and power struggles and he's got a bigger toy then mine... after a couple of generations it might change... our wants and greedy nature could possible change but I don't think you can get there." - jester

You are absolutly correct, I don't support any government. I acknowledge the feebles of democracy, socialism, fascism communism and the like. The main problem is peopl. there is in fact no true representation of a socio-political ideal, merely the intrepetation of the leader/ dictator/ primeminister/king/president (whatever title you want to give them). Hence why there are terms like "Maoism", "Stalinism", "Lenninism". There is no pure example of a political ideal in this world. We try to apply a system, that is supposed to be run by super humans, ubermensh, but unfortunatly we place normal people in the possisions, and are suprised when the system fails and is corrupted.

Yes, the superhuman ideaology that one cannot be currupted by power... ver very false if I'm not offending anyone. Its sort of liek there's no such thing as an unselfish deed, everything you do you get soemthing back only if its you feeling good about yourself. I;m not sure how that realtes all I know is that it does...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

So, yes the commies got rid of unemployment but it was not a very good solution. I prefer the Scandinavian way.

---

That makes two of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

When the first time i read Anthony Giddens' The Third Way, i thought "well ok, the welfare state, the third way, and the socio-democratic thing is a brilliant idea". But I dont think all countries in this world have the resources to achieve the goal.

---

Maybe not, but I'm sure than most countries aren't even doing the slightest effort to get remotely close. The national resources are being given away, the estate gets smaller and smaller every year as in regarding to services (but somehow, the burocracy seems to get bigger and bigger), the crooks just get elected year after year, etc. A better government is possible, and realizing that is the first step, but it takes a lot of effort and time. But it's either that or continue the descent...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Yes, the superhuman ideaology that one cannot be currupted by power... ver very false if I'm not offending anyone. Its sort of liek there's no such thing as an unselfish deed, everything you do you get soemthing back only if its you feeling good about yourself. I;m not sure how that realtes all I know is that it does...

---

Well all ideolgies in this world were established by ordinary humans, so there's no such thing as the superhuman ideology in the first place. Check out all those characters in Animal Farm for example. The idea was to bring and established an ideal society, yet look what happened afterwards. What can we expect...they are just ordinary animals.

Quote:

---

the crooks just get elected year after year, etc. A better government is possible, and realizing that is the first step, but it takes a lot of effort and time. But it's either that or continue the descent...

---

Well isnt this interesting, it's like saying bad guys always win. But i think there's a good development, especially if you referring to developing countries. I suppose political awarenes is increasing in many developing countries (that includes my country). I agree that it'd take lots of time and efforts. Suppose this where political education plays its role, especially through critical writings, books, even comical features in the newspapers.

Been away for a few weeks, but just dying to say........................Yes, humans are terribly prone to weakness......terribly open to curruption....and yes, this attribute blossoms to flower when power over others is the the unseen and ethereal and much misunderstood aphrodisiac.....to this lure humans are susceptable, and ideals suffer accordingly. But I fear the most obvious danger to an 'ideal' ruling culture (or statistical behavioral base of humanness, if I may create a phrase) is the less learned lesson, or maybe the most forgotten; Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Capitalism, Freedom, any and all ideals or practices in life tend to butt up against (and strive to ignore when given full wind) the concept of 'anything to an extreme is not good'. Any 'ideal' is not inherently full of fissures and faults, but extremism, in any and all forms, expressed as 'good government', or curtained and smudged or 'spun' to ease the digestion of the masses, can't be good. America's current strive to 'Democratize the World, capitalist countries' current strive to bring economic freedom to the entire globe, extremist religious sects seeking to dominate the globe with their 'own' interpretation of scripture (all organized religions are guilty here) and many other Extreme examples of an ideal gone haywire are rampant in most cultures around the globe. It is left to those of us with a relatively centralist view, a balance of the best and worst on offer who hold the key to this world's future. George Orwell marks the extremes for us, ludicriously highlights the obvious because it is often the most well hidden. BRAVO George!! Lest we forget.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuro_muckraker

Well, i have to say 1984 is a bit more tedious than orwell's animal farm. this anti-utopian novel, in my opinion, is in no way to stand for socialism; on the contrary, it reflects disillusionment of the ex-zealot of communism.

and the most horrible notion i bore in mind when reading this novel is that, as a reader from china, i found most of its descriptions in the book were not imaginary to me at all. they are not dreamy utopia, bad or not. rather, they are my nation's authentic past and to some extent, ongoing daymare.

---

I swear I have to be the only one that thinks that 1984 is a better definition of capitalism and where the industrial revolution was taking us. I don't think it had anything to do with communism/socialism. Most communists/socialists will tell you what was happening in Russia at the time was not Communism... If anything it's a prime example of how a socialist ideal can be corrupted when mixed with a capitalist system.