1984 and 2007

[nethrelm]

I'm going to have to agree with dorina on this one. I'm seeing far too many correlations between 1984 and Revelation in the Bible. I never had a lot of belief in religion (and I still don't) but there are things happening that fit just a little too well. I'm not saying the Bible is the undisputed Word of God as some will claim. I am saying that there is a lot of value in the book. If you have a distinguishing mind, you can pick out which parts have been corrupted by the churches over the centuries and which parts were divinely inspired. Revelation seems to be very prophetic. In the chapters leading up to Revelation 13, I swore I was reading a cryptic account of World War II. If that's correct, then Revelation 13 could easily be happening right now. See if you can follow me on this...

Technology. Technology allows the Big Brother scenario to really happen. *edit*
Maybe it's all a coincidence, or maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can't help but feel very uneasy about everything that is happening. Whatever the case may be, it certainly makes for one helluva story!



Peace.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Just like to add my take on it, from the other side of the world.

Imagine a system where the ruling "class" made up all of the major parties. Capitalism has created a new type of elite, where the money has risen to the top in many ways. Consider media. The enormous majority of electronic, print and voice media is carried by a tiny bunch of companies and is therefore open to abuse. If mainstream coverage of international events doesn't convince you that we are seeing somewhat slanted details already, then you must be either very young or naive.

I have watched the differences in political bias swing from an almost-Communist Labour in England, to the current situation where the ruling Labour party is as right-wing as any Tory government has been or could be. It's Labour who have instigated the biggest and most sophisticated electronic spy network in history - all to monitor its own citizens. This kind of behaviour would have seen storms of protest across Britain which would have dwarfed any seen to date had this been tried even as recently as the 1990s.

Using OECD countries, representing pretty much all of the major democracies in the world, it's very hard to distinguish serious differences in policy between any of the ruling parties or major opposition. The Green factor aside - and they have been shown able to sway to political influence with the best of them - policies, as they relate to the vast majority of citizens are largely the same.

Capitalism itself is becoming a de facto totalitarian system. That may be fine and work well, but who's to say that the best interests of humanity aren't served better by complete anarchy, or matriarchal rule?

When 5% of humans control 95% of wealth in the world - and I don't think the truth is too far from those numbers - have we created a fair system, or The Party?

Compare with 1984. The Party in place. Network for national, constant surveillance of its citizens being implemented. Anti-demonstration policies instituted. Prisoners held without rights.

There's no chance of an Orwellian/Stalinesque totalitarian sweeping into power for a thousand years; but is what we're creating all that different underneath?

I am speaking from America, and I don't know about a lot of the corruption of the rich classes of the rest of the world, but the American rich have done the most for the people of America, and, far from becoming "The Party", have reasonably good intentions. They primarily look out for themselves, but they assist the people who enabled them to become weathy without any greater compensation than having their names implanted on the institutions they establish. The problem is that the great masses of people (in the democratic republic) are influenced by a minority of the minority of the rich that is the media. The media have influenced people in a highly negative way and, for the most part, have a political agenda and don't allow diversion from that agenda by their employees. As they hold more sway than the run-of-the-mill rich, they are in a position (and seem to be using that position) to form a "Party". However, they are not exceptionally successful, so I can't see that capitalism is becoming a totalitarian state, and, conversely, the leaders of our country have very little power.

[The Atheist]

Hi, I just registered here. Could someone please remind me what the handbook or manual in 1984 that Winston had was referred to? I'm sorry, I haven't read the book for 20 years. It was and still is one of my favorite novels.

"Goldstein's Book"

Actual entitled:

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

[The Atheist]

I'm going to have to agree with dorina on this one. I'm seeing far too many correlations between 1984 and Revelation in the Bible. I never had a lot of belief in religion (and I still don't) but there are things happening that fit just a little too well. I'm not saying the Bible is the undisputed Word of God as some will claim. I am saying that there is a lot of value in the book. If you have a distinguishing mind, you can pick out which parts have been corrupted by the churches over the centuries and which parts were divinely inspired. Revelation seems to be very prophetic. In the chapters leading up to Revelation 13, I swore I was reading a cryptic account of World War II. If that's correct, then Revelation 13 could easily be happening right now. See if you can follow me on this...

Your problem seems to be, like many, that Revelation is so obscure that it can mean anything you want it to. Nostradamus' quatrains are much the same.

If you look for coincidences, you will find them, but they could equally apply to any other time in our history.

Trust me, Revelation is rubbish. Most serious biblical scholars (christians to a man) don't want it in the bible at all, but the churches demand it stays.

[The Atheist]

I am speaking from America, and I don't know about a lot of the corruption of the rich classes of the rest of the world, but the American rich have done the most for the people of America, and, far from becoming "The Party", have reasonably good intentions. They primarily look out for themselves, but they assist the people who enabled them to become weathy without any greater compensation than having their names implanted on the institutions they establish. The problem is that the great masses of people (in the democratic republic) are influenced by a minority of the minority of the rich that is the media. The media have influenced people in a highly negative way and, for the most part, have a political agenda and don't allow diversion from that agenda by their employees. As they hold more sway than the run-of-the-mill rich, they are in a position (and seem to be using that position) to form a "Party". However, they are not exceptionally successful, so I can't see that capitalism is becoming a totalitarian state, and, conversely, the leaders of our country have very little power.

*edit*

I understand what you're saying and I have no doubt that the majority of people feel the same way, plus I don't think this is something which is being plotted or arranged right now - I'm suggesting that the way current Western power politics are played, the opportunity is open for a totalitarian system to arise within it.

*edit*

(Sorry if we're getting into too much politics here, admin)

Laws are being enacted in every democracy which limit freedoms. Any erosion of civil liberty gives the opportunity for more to take place. The thin end of the wedge, it's called, as we lose freedoms, it becomes easier to justify removing others. Please note, I am not a doomsayer, just positing a possibility based upon losses of those freedoms.

[nethrelm]

Your problem seems to be, like many, that Revelation is so obscure that it can mean anything you want it to. Nostradamus' quatrains are much the same.

And your problem seems to be, like many, that you view another person's opinion as a problem. We're all speculating here; it's called a "thought experiment". Some people believe in Nostradamus' quatrains, some don't. Some people believe in Revelation, some don't. Neither side has a problem. It's a matter of personal opinion.

[The Atheist]

And your problem seems to be, like many, that you view another person's opinion as a problem. We're all speculating here; it's called a "thought experiment". Some people believe in Nostradamus' quatrains, some don't. Some people believe in Revelation, some don't. Neither side has a problem. It's a matter of personal opinion.

Whether people believe them or not isn't the issue - the problem is that both are incomprehensible and accordingly can be fitted to any agenda. Revelation has been predicting the downfall of human society since the second or third century but we're still waiting. I could make Revelation fit many different apocalyptic novels.

[billyjack]

And your problem seems to be, like many, that you view another person's opinion as a problem. We're all speculating here; it's called a "thought experiment". Some people believe in Nostradamus' quatrains, some don't. Some people believe in Revelation, some don't. Neither side has a problem. It's a matter of personal opinion.

that "everyone's opinion is a-ok" makes every opinion equally valid and equally weak.

nostradamus was an archaic john edwards. didn't south park take our nose plugs off and let the stink of psychics hit the air?

i've seen sam harris take a cookbook recipe and turn it into a means to enlightenment. his only special power was a masters in philosophy.

revelation is typical in terms of "end of days" fables. you see the same patterns in native american lore as well. the "end of days" is simply a re-telling of the fall of a civilization applied to future peoples in order to avoid the same mistakes their forefathers made. in revelations, the civilization was rome, and the story of romes fall was applied to some time in the distant future with the figure of christ thrown in there as primary cause. christ's appearance was followed by the fall of rome and his reappearance will be followed by the end of the world. its not divine, it a folklore. folklore is used to teach and learn. nothing wrong with that. divine predictions are used to control and brainwash. that is a problem

[bazarov]

Capitalism itself is becoming a de facto totalitarian system. That may be fine and work well, but who's to say that the best interests of humanity aren't served better by complete anarchy, or matriarchal rule?

When 5% of humans control 95% of wealth in the world - and I don't think the truth is too far from those numbers - have we created a fair system, or The Party?

Actually, socialism would be the best system if only people would be fair enough to themselves and others but they aren't...
Capitalism at least gives you a chance to come from zero to those 5%, and totalitarian system doesn't; you know you'll always be a zero!
Those 5% knows that they will have better if you will also have better, so they are, let's say fair to those 95%.

[The Atheist]

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

Yep, that's always the saddest part of it.

Whichever way it's viewed, socialism is the perfect answer for humankind - apart from when human nature comes in: people won't put others equal with themselves.

Orwell knew it.

[Dante Wodehouse]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[bazarov]

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.

[bazarov]

Orwell knew it.

All proles are the same...

[aarrgg]

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.