Orwell was no prophet, but an honest man

[Sindel]

(Please, note that english is not my mothertongue. I hope I will not foul it too heavily)

60 years after, Orwell's 1984 keeps sparking questions, as this forum attests.

Of course, we answer many of those questions according to our personal political stance. But there is one particular theme on which I think many people could agree, so I submit it to test:
IMHO, Orwell NEVER intended 1984 as a prophecy. It was used in that perverted way by people with their own agenda (Disqualify any attempt to overcome capitalism, or on the other side, reject the book as a treason to the "People's Cause").
What Orwell did was share his questions. The aching questions of an honest man, left without any certainty. He wrote a scary tale, a fable, a nightmare, you name it, but not an argumented vision of the future. Reporter as he was, an acute observer of his times, he could have built an argumented case, but he did not.
Again IMHO, his main concern was the individual, not the system. In his book "Homage to Catalonya" (1938), he leaves no doubt that he praised equality of rank, pay, etc..., anarchy, to name it. And when that ephemeral equality was bashed by the communists, the very party which was supposed to rather fight for it, well...he was left orphan, with nothing more than an unextinguished faith in human decency.
But even that last core of faith was continually tested by all the lies and the propaganda that the western and eastern élites alike swallowed and repeated until they became official truth.
To sum up, when I re-read 1984, I hear an honest man, grieving his lost innocence, desperately trying not to become desperate (sorry for the poor image). And maybe telling us, people of his future: "In my time, we were SO EASY to manipulate, especially by those who instrumentalize our hopes. Have you made any progress, dear friends?"

Have we?

[The Atheist]

Again IMHO, his main concern was the individual, not the system.

Unfortunately not - he was very clear that it was written as a treatise against totalitarianism.

[Sindel]

Unfortunately not - he was very clear that it was written as a treatise against totalitarianism.

I guess we agree, actually. When I say "his main concern was the individual", I mean it was what he cared most about, whatever the system, as suggested by his fond memoires of anarchy in Catalonya.

As I said, english is not my mothertongue, and sometimes I might make no sense. Was it the case?

[The Atheist]

I guess we agree, actually. When I say "his main concern was the individual", I mean it was what he cared most about, whatever the system, as suggested by his fond memoires of anarchy in Catalonya.

As I said, english is not my mothertongue, and sometimes I might make no sense. Was it the case?

No, your English is fine. I think we just looked at it from different angles.

[Gladys]

Again IMHO, his main concern was the individual, not the system. ... he was left orphan, with nothing more than an unextinguished faith in human decency.

In 1984, much is made of the psychology of party members in Oceania: the way in which individuals, who are caught up in this intrusive nightmare, carry on.

Winston is the man yearning for an unlikely freedom; Julia is pragmatic, happy with the little she can glean; Parsons is the loyal patriot; Syme takes solace in the compelling logic of invincible Ingsoc; O'Brien gains meaning in working alongside Big Brother, in obeying orders with the efficiency of Adolf Eichmann.

As the novel commences, Winston - like Orwell - has 'nothing more than an unextinguished faith in human decency'. At the end, Winston, Julia, Parsons and Syme have nothing.

...[Orwell] was very clear that it was written as a treatise against totalitarianism.

What exactly did Orwell mean by 'totalitarianism'?

[The Atheist]

What exactly did Orwell mean by 'totalitarianism'?

Standard one-party state as in USSR, Communist China, North Korea, etc.

[Leonard_K]

I am sure that Orwell didn't mean this horror story to be merely an indictment of communism or any particular political structure. He tells us that Power for even ostensibly liberating purposes is never relinquished once acheived. Power is its own justification.

It is a speculation that unprecedented modern technical advancement might cause the emergence of a stable political system facilitated by torture, brainwashing and hate. Orwell elevates man's ability to love as the emotion essential to being alive. Yet he overstates the technical competance of the powerful elite.

Nevertheless, I certainly think it is a warning and therefore a prophesy in that sense. Indeed our experience bears this out. Intellectuals tell us that something can be manifestly true yet at the same time politically incorrect. What is this if not "doublethink."

[The Atheist]

I am sure that Orwell didn't mean this horror story to be merely an indictment of communism or any particular political structure. He tells us that Power for even ostensibly liberating purposes is never relinquished once acheived. Power is its own justification.

Unfortunately not, and this is why Orwell is so easy in the end.

He wrote the book, then he wrote essays about the book, assuring us that the book, and indeed all of his later works, were written with the express intention of warning against totalitarianism.

Orwell himself believed that democratic socialism was a "correct" power system, and a century of it in some places tends to prove him right. You seem to be confusing the "power corrupts" part with the "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[Gladys]

Yet he overstates the technical competance of the powerful elite.

Does he? Could you give an example?

[Leonard_K]

Gladys: ... technical competance of the powerful elite. Thank's for asking.

I think it is not plausible. Any kind of society; its economy, resulting from the independent decisions of hundreds of millions of people cannot be controlled. That's also the flaw in socialism. Its a criticism, not very well known but exposed by F.A. Hayek and others, that a society is a rational system but not knowable in any practical sense.

There is no way for the Party to understand what should be done on any given day to assure a desired outcome. That is why I say that the stable system emerging in 1984 is not plausible. It is reasonable that the socialist Orwell who thinks that this can be done for some greater good could propose this for an anomalously malignant dictatorship, but it is more than debatable as a realistic outcome.

Atheist: You say I am confusing something about the corrupting influence of power.

I just know what O'brien says after he pushed the dial up to 35 when Winston foolishly told him the Party rules for "for our own good."

O'brien says that the Party "...seeks power for its own sake... not for the good of others ..."
And then he goes on to ridicule the Nazis and the Soviets for not having the courage to recognize their own motives.

So this is not merely power corrupting good people and making them bad.

It is Power expunging love, truth and beauty, acknowleging its own self conscious sense of purpose using torture, lies and hate to secure its presence. It is also why Big Brother is no ordinary tyrant like we know from history.

It is an amazing, original and scary idea.

[Gladys]

He tells us that Power for even ostensibly liberating purposes is never relinquished once achieved. Power is its own justification.

So, under Ingsoc, rather than corrupted by power, the Inner Party is proudly and consciously evil from the first. Big Brother worships the god of power.

I wonder whether the same evil pride, as evident in the hyper-intelligent O'Brien, was present from the earliest days of Stalin or Pol Pot. If so, neither had the insight to produce an eternally stable regime like Ingsoc.

Interestingly, the never-ending war fought by Oceania, if real, is limited to military conflict since there is no international propaganda war. I guess we are to assume that all three superpowers support the status quo: three versions of Ingsoc.

[Sindel]

Leonard K, I fully agree with you. Orwell did not claim to foresee a terrible future in detail.
He wrote a chilling fantasy to exorcise and share his personal disillusions.

When you read The Illiad, you do not have to believe in the existence of Zeus, Athena
and all the other gods. What really counts is how the human characters end up meeting
their fate. As you said, citing "Hayek and others", we cannot see the whole picture, ever. Meaning that any writer with the ambition of describing human fate is left with a
single alternative: Either refining details for likelihood, but total likelihood is unattainable, or creating surreal characters/situations who embody all that is left ignored (Illiad's gods, Macbeth's 3 witches, 1984's Big Brother and Ingsoc, etc...).

A fantasy does not pretend to be precise, but to depict trends. In 1984, Orwell depicts the trend he seemed to fear most in his lifetime: How people could use their understanding of the psychology of the masses, not to free the people, but to enslave them.

[Leonard_K]

So, under Ingsoc, rather than corrupted by power, the Inner Party is proudly and consciously evil from the first. Big Brother worships the god of power.

I wonder whether the same evil pride, as evident in the hyper-intelligent O'Brien, was present from the earliest days of Stalin or Pol Pot. If so, neither had the insight to produce an eternally stable regime like Ingsoc.

Interestingly, the never-ending war fought by Oceania, if real, is limited to military conflict since there is no international propaganda war. I guess we are to assume that all three superpowers support the status quo: three versions of Ingsoc.

Gladys:
Yeah. I wonder too.

Don't you think real life totalitarians start out with a theory that they are perfecting man and securing a perfect social order? How often do we suffer bloggers with this or that self righteous theory about what is wrong with society -- even the Nazi's said they were pursuing a greater good.

Maybe all of us have that impulse; to perfect society -- Interestingly I interpret Christian philosophy as a singular statement opposing the capacity of man to perfect himself invoking a force outside nature to achieve that end. Orwell does not say this but says something akin to the notion that this enterprise, to perfect man, can go haywire as it were and perpetuate itself. That truth, beauty, family and love are needed for us to be considered alive and free.

[The Atheist]

So, under Ingsoc, rather than corrupted by power, the Inner Party is proudly and consciously evil from the first. Big Brother worships the god of power.

I wonder whether the same evil pride, as evident in the hyper-intelligent O'Brien, was present from the earliest days of Stalin or Pol Pot. If so, neither had the insight to produce an eternally stable regime like Ingsoc.

I'd think so, although with the rider that Pol Pot may have just been insane. Stalin, I'm quite sure, was just an opportunist who took it with both hands. That's where Stalin and Lenin differ - I think Lenin may have had honest motives and been corrupted, while Stalin never had any intention other than absolute power.

Interestingly, the never-ending war fought by Oceania, if real, is limited to military conflict since there is no international propaganda war. I guess we are to assume that all three superpowers support the status quo: three versions of Ingsoc.

You'd think that the three ruling juntas must have some kind of interaction, so it's feasible to assume they all set the tune they play to.

Don't you think real life totalitarians start out with a theory that they are perfecting man and securing a perfect social order? How often do we suffer bloggers with this or that self righteous theory about what is wrong with society -- even the Nazi's said they were pursuing a greater good.

I think that's often the case, but if you look at African totalitarian states, most of them are just greed for power and no pretence is made about the good of the people. Unless you belong to the ruling tribe...

[Leonard_K]

I think that's often the case, but if you look at African totalitarian states, most of them are just greed for power and no pretence is made about the good of the people. Unless you belong to the ruling tribe...

You make a great point. Your dictator is justified and supported by the good of his tribe. Could you expand the idea taking that as criticism?

I think Orwell's Party doesn't justify itself based on anything outside itself. The Party is not a tribe because the people who belong to are not human or even alive as Orwell sees it. The Proles and what's left of Winston and Julia are still living humans. I thought that the Party was an organic system on its own facilitated by advancement in both technology and psychology.

The Party is like a new better adapted species taking over its environment. It is a snake introduced to an island changing its ecology forever. Scientific Socialism was supposed to be a new better species and Orwell expresses his disillusionment about it mutating into grotesque forms like the Soviet and Nazi systems.