1984 by George Orwell

While reading the "Politics and Media" thread, the discussion was about how the Party of 1984 was so generically tyrannical and hypocritcal, it could be used as a stand in for any ideology.

It then occurred to me this was kind of the point. Orwell was explicitly satirizing Stalinism but was also taking a shot at the fact that a lot of people had the tendency to take Stalin at his word that he was working to create a workers utopia and all of the horrifying things he was doing like, you know, conquering nations and killing dissidents were done to bring about this state. It was the assumption that anyone doing so much evil had to be a Well-Intentioned Extremist.

When as we've seen in recent years (and undoubtedly true long before), many ideologies are just covers for protecting the power base and manipulating the masses. Power and wealth were the point of the Inner Party and ideology of any stripe is something of an opiate of the masses.

Mind you, I have some strange 1984 theories like the fact I believe Julia was assigned to seduce Winston.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 12th 2022 at 8:18:17 AM

The whole book was basically warning against Totalitarianism, yes. Not Nazis or Communists or anything specific but just in general totalitarian systems.

Kinda but not kinda, like I said the insoc is heavly informed by stalin totalitarism and desire to rewrite history when it didnt suit them and heavy use of persecution. But what I think is more glaring is orwell use the insoc on his own ideas of how totalitarism will play in the future. On the idea that rather to torture for a god or for a ideology, now the state can torture you simply to mantain himself because truth beyond power dosent matter.

I think part of the issue is that Stalin has become sort of obscured by the passage of time and both sides of the politcal spectrum have kind of taken the elements about him that are useful while forgetting the whole. Putin and others have kind of tried to rehabilitate his image of industrializing Russia and "winning" WW 2 (The Russians definitely did but I would say that in spite of Joseph) while his anti-communist opponents just say, "Worse than Hitler."

The sheer WEIRDNESS of Stalinism is largely lost to time with rewriting history to the point of Unperson, the mass purges, the purge quotas, and so on else. Like North Korea a lot of Orwell's most insane things aren't exaggerations but just a description of the reality that no one believes because it's so over the top.

And 1984 has a lot of Orwell's frustrations that Stalinism, the ultimate authoritarian nightmare and Tyrant masturbation fodder, was defended by anarchists and socialists around the world because it was the alternative to capitalism.

And it's Truth in Television, too. Recently I got involved in arguments with people on Twitter saying "Well yeah the Soviets were awful but Communism is great and North Vietnam and North Korea were just helping to liberate the South from fascist governments!"

Yeah, I'm sure all the people they murdered for no reason were really grateful.

I recently reread this book. As a former (over)devout Catholic, I was struck by how the same communist totalitarian patterns are present in Christianity.

I mean yeah, that's what you get from an ideology that wants to regulate every facet of life. Even thoughtcrime exists in Christianity. Just thinking about adultery is the same as committing it, for example.

It's not that Christianity has to be totalitarian, just like socialism. But just like socialism, its implementation has ended up that way. Because as Charles said, many ideologies end up as covers for protecting the powerful.

I think karl popper made the case of the familiary in that comunism at first exposed does really share much of the same spirit of christianity: mostly comunitarian. kinda anti materialist or anti wealth and a sort of end point were sociaty will become better or ideal. Rusell really said it comunism and christianity often dislike so much because their similarities.

Communists don't believe in a "workers' utopia". They don't even believe in utopia. Marx and Engels railed against "utopian socialists" in their time. Communists believe in an *eventual* classless society coming into existence (with its own contradictions to sort out), but it will only be through a long period of socialist development and revolution across the world (which won't even happen at once in the first place, and which will be under threat of capitalist restoration). Certainly, there's a lot of people who justified all sorts of horrific actions in Soviet policy without criticism (the mass deaths, the purges, the deportations, the tanks running through Hungary and Czechoslovakia, organized crime, the freaking war in Afghanistan), but Stalin supposedly "working to create a workers' utopia" was not one of the things being advocated for.

Let's not kid, there's plenty of exaggerations of the Soviet Union under Stalin that have been widely scrutinized with the opening of the Soviet archives. There's a tendency to "over-Stalinize" Soviet history, to borrow a turn of phrase from historian Moshe Lewin. Orwell's work certainly hasn't helped in that regard with people heavily associating the USSR with Eastasia, despite Eastasia being a deliberate exaggeration to make his point.

Since when? Some anarchists became communists after the October Revolution, but others stayed anarchists. Social democrats were literally made of those socialists who refused to support the October Revolution. Both of them opposed the USSR under Stalin, and those who attempted to form Popular Fronts with communist parties had *very* tense relationships with them. In fact, Orwell would have known that, he was literally a defender of the CNT-FAI and the POUM, both anti-Soviet, during the Spanish Civil War.

Anyways, to focus on the actual book, I unfortunately feel that 1984 falls into an unyielding pessimism that borders on defeatism. I had a hard time trying to figure out the proper words to express my thoughts, until I read Salman Rushdie's essay "Outside the Whale" (the title being a reference to Orwell's own essay "Inside the Whale"), a criticism of Orwell that touches on 1984, and I can't help but agree with it:

Here's a link to the essay if anyone would like to give it a read for themselves.

Edited by Diana1969 on Aug 26th 2022 at 4:38:55 AM

"Communists don't believe in a "workers' utopia". They don't even believe in utopia. Marx and Engels railed against "utopian socialists" in their time."

Yeah and Jesus christ was a pacifist who go against violence, how that turn out?.

"Communists believe in an *eventual* classless society coming into existence (with its own contradictions to sort out), but it will only be through a long period of socialist development and revolution across the world (which won't even happen at once in the first place, and which will be under threat of capitalist restoration)."

I will be honest here and this is just utopianism with larger steps, the sole idea of doing a revolutuon that with a unspecific amount of time will produce a classless society that need and can be achieved and protected(and hell, the process was and is already atacked by capitalist restoration in many ways) is the kind of thing that drive a sort of Utopian spirit in itself by turing something down, creating something truly new that is better than the old world specially ridding of something as class diference is pretty much there. Something that fuel the good and bad quality we often see in comunism.

Now having read inside the whale and outside the whale. I will said I agree....and disagree?.

I mean, I agree that in a way how Orwell turn into defeatism after witness the rise of modern totalitarism in stalinism and nazism. the party is probably how he envision the future of some sort and sort of waring about it.

What it kinda turn me off in general of the critic is this sense of.....how to put it...utilitarism about it? is hard for me to said but the whole "this only serve the status quo" that a times look something is mostly judge on how something support our already establish beliefs or not. This is not really real critism more than a feel like to me.

I admit I kinda chuckle with the "We may not approve of Khomeini’s Iran, but the revolution there was a genuine mass movement." because...sure it was genuine, in the same way movement for Chavez was genuine and how that let the disruption of a status quo to another that silence people very quickly or very slowly, I should now that.

If anything he said something I totally agree and is "that politics and literature, like sport and politics, do mix, are inextricably mixed, and that that mixture has consequences." and how that paradoxically manifest in 1984: in one part the novel endure for his almost scare them stright nature of future of totalitarism he envision clearly, from the use of language, to the erasing of the past to the creation of enemies and all lumped in what you can call state mandate solipism(the only thing for sure is everything that come from the states).....And yet I will said the book is endering for the....quietness of his protagonist, Winston isnt some guy trying to take down the big brother but is trying to live his life and rediscovering the simple pleasures amist all the dreadfullest was something really refrenshing for me because let me tell you, the destruction at the very notion of confort is something dictatorship wants, is how he hang at the little things even when they are chip away that really make me sympathize with him.

I dont know, just my thoughts really.

In fairness, pretty sure this was written before Rushdie got that fatwa issued on him. His opinion on Iran isn't exactly positive.

Jesus wasn't a pacifist either, so I don't know what point this is trying to make.

Pushing for a revolutionary change in society is not inherently utopian, nor is wanting to build a better world inherently utopian. I'm going to avoid delving deeper into examining communist theory but having studied it extensively, I heavily disagree that it's utopian.

Where I agree with Rushdie is that Orwell's work needs to be taken into its proper historical place of post-WWII Red Scare culture, with the Brits fearful of losing their Empire and banging on about the "Red Menace". Orwell is writing a critique of dictatorship (heavily based on the USSR), but it's one that offers no solution to the dictatorship. On the one hand, the intent is to horrify the reader with the ending. On the other hand, it's so over the top that it's kind of ridiculous. There is no possible dissent, no way to break free, one will be broken and reduced to a shell for even trying to stand up to the dictatorship. Maybe it's my personal tastes speaking, but I just do not jive with that. That's not how actual dictatorship works. Real dictatorships are built on sand. As it turns out, if you don't have the people on your side, they revolt. A lot.

Eastasia is obviously meant as an exaggeration of dictatorship to make a point, but even that point itself is very pessimistic.

Edited by Diana1969 on Aug 26th 2022 at 11:13:58 PM

"In fairness, pretty sure this was written before Rushdie got that fatwa issued on him. His opinion on Iran isn't exactly positive. "

I see, is still funny to me because we often dont talk about how social movement often can let to somewhat worse.

"Jesus wasn't a pacifist either, so I don't know what point this is trying to make. "

My point is Marx words are kinda irrelevant and how the comunism movement often move, in the sense that sometimes ideology can grow and change in ways the creator never expect it, at some point ideology outgrow their creators.

"Pushing for a revolutionary change in society is not inherently utopian, nor is wanting to build a better world inherently utopian."

I will said creating a classless society is kinda utopian, is not merely the "little by little we do things better" improvement of liberalism but more....but them again I will just agree to disagree here.

"but I just do not jive with that. That's not how actual dictatorship works. Real dictatorships are built on sand. As it turns out, if you don't have the people on your side, they revolt. A lot."

Well, I can tell you as someone who is living in a dictatorship, that is actually how dictatorship works, probably not with the same intensity since that is more narrative buissnes(as orwell said, the first objetive of any fiction is survival). But the constant atacks of you, the deroding of democracy, constant atempt at nationalization,etc,etc are all there.

And I said this because dictatorship can actually be quite resistent when they want too: Chavismo got more than 50% of the population for a decade and a half and they are still today in power, the soviet live for decades before a myrad of things take them down. it maybe look like litte but as someone who is suffering for it....it can be a hell sometimes, is easy to speak about being outside the whale as this thing that one most go on....but for some, specially does under a boot that feel have being there forever, it feel more close to drowing.

.....I get Orwell quietism, even his contradictory application for it as orwell often seen to shift back and for between "Art who speak about things" and "Art that is openly political" is something I can get because the mind often bounce between one and the other.

Also I will said offering an alternative would probably be bad since it would dilute the impact of the ending and the waring about the new totalitarism that was rising. in way is the defeatism that really sell you out the treat insoc and their unrelenting drive to crush your soul. The can be said for brave new world who also end in a downer ending.

But as always, YMMV on that.

I don’t think the message of 1984 is “don’t resist tyranny”. It’s depicting a world in which resistance to tyranny fails because there is nothing but three different tyrannies (Eurasia is the USSR, btw; Eastasia is China), but it’s depicting it as a warning of something to avoid, not an injunction to do nothing.

And I think the more central political message it is trying to communicate is that tyranny is not ideological. It may claim it has an ideology and working towards a greater purpose, but in reality the objective of tyranny is tyranny. You can never say “we must accept tyranny as a midpoint in the path to a better world.” I think that’s a solid message in the context of his times, though his understanding of it may be too narrow - it could be applied as easily to colonialism as to communism.

As projections of the dangers of the future, I think Brave New World is far more on-point than 1984, but that doesn’t mean 1984 has nothing to say.

Edited by Galadriel on Aug 27th 2022 at 3:56:52 AM

My main point is that, historically, dictatorships do not act as all-encompassing as Eurasia. Even in the case of Venezuela, opposition to the Chavismo regime continues to organize itself (albeit the effectiveness of said opposition is its own little mess). When the masses are beaten by a heavy stick of tyranny, they don't just willingly submit all at once. Protests arise, fighting arises, underground organization arises. It obviously doesn't manifest in the same way in every country, but it does manifest.

I understand the metaphor, don't get me wrong, but it's still ultimately a pessimist's metaphor that I disagree with. To Orwell, the dictatorship will destroy your individuality, attack you, harass you, reduce you to a slave, there is no genuine opposition to the dictatorship, you will love and embrace Big Brother and the almighty nation-state...but in real life, how many people organized opposition to Hitler when the Nazis had established their one-party rule? How many people organized opposition to Mussolini? Whether it be Marcos, Suharto, or Gaddafi, their order was built on sand.

Perhaps I speak naively or idealistically, but I can see why so many people (namely conservatives) take Orwell's work to preach *against* trying to fight for something better. Even disregarding Orwell's own conservative turn by the end of his life, the downer ending, while effective within the themes of the book, does paint a picture that can be used to tell people "There is nothing you can do against the dictatorship". Whether that's something Orwell intended or not, he was definitely more than a bit pessimistic by this point, and it's something I don't personally jive with. But YMMV on it, I guess.

Edited by Diana1969 on Aug 27th 2022 at 7:20:27 PM

Here's one thing I wonder about in that book: O'Brien claims the Party will endure because, unlike so many real life tyrannies, they're self-aware about the fact that power is their only goal. What I wonder is: did Orwell believe that would be the case? It seems to me like it'd be the opposite: power for its own sake is too empty for a whole society to sustain itself. The Nazis and Soviets may have been hypocrites, but I think that hypocrisy was necessary to sustain their tyranny. The Party wasn't even interested in wealth or long life, let alone ideology, and while For the Evulz may be enough for some people, I doubt it could be for a whole society.

-Casts meaningful look at the current Republican Party-

It's not really that far-fetched.

I think they at least believe they have ideals.

If Orwell believed this to be the case, he was wrong. It's not about power for its own sake. It's about class interests, ideology, fighting against a perceived enemy. These movements don't exactly come out of the ether, after all. They don't want power for power's sake, they have an idea of what to do with that power and what their ultimate goals are.

That's ridiculous. The Republicans have many ideas beyond mere powergrabbing.

Kinda and kinda not, what it try to said here is the idea that with the party the concept of ideological consistency is finally go, power is power and it is what it matters, we have to remenber that unlike other insoc have finally reach total power so they dont need ideological purity only this fit what the party wants.

I dont think he belive that was the case now but it could probably be in the future, there is one line that show it.

To put a example, for nazis and soviets the ribbentop agreement can be see as head scratcher and probably something people on both side did critize, for the party? never, it always exist until it dosent so it didnt anymore, as the party have the hability rewrite the past even their own internal disagreement are a vanish problem for them.

O´brian is probably the "philosophical" voice speaker of this new totalitarism and the one who cut all the crap the party have said to Winston and getting in what it is: the party will stand not matter what.

I will said Orwell did speculate(because this is what it is in the end) the future Tyranny would be by destroying the whole notion of certernity on something.

Kinda but it show todays how much powergrabbing is the main motivator: from republican not having a plataform beyond "Do what trumps said", to De santis atacking a company because said company did something he didnt like to Tucker praising Putin because Putin didnt critizing him in the way the left does, not matter Putin being a dictator and what should be more damming, a good damn KGB former agent.

Hell Trump himself feel like a living example in doublethink, is really hard suport him without prezel your mind and the sheer amount of contradiction he said over and over. Because what he said is kinda largarly irrelevant to what he symbolize to some people. So facts het deeply shove aside.

I'm not sure I understand this point. The pact was a non-aggression treaty to buy time for the Soviets to prepare for war. They knew it was inevitable, they just wanted to turn the Nazis attention westward after the Munich Agreement before it inevitably turned back to their "crusade against the Judeo-Bolshevik menace". It was about as much of an "alliance" as the later non-aggression treaty with Japan. It was certainly underhanded (to say nothing of the secret clauses), but it was mere realpolitik, nothing exceptional.

It's a motivator formed by societal and economic motivations. The MAGA platform is economic competition with China, strengthening militarism, crushing minority rights, condemning anything "un-American". This brewed for decades. They are certainly eclectic, but fascism is inherently eclectic.

Loathe as I am to reference Sartre, he made a point about anti-Semites and their ridiculous arguments: they're dragging you, their opponent, down with them, to make *you* look foolish when debating them. The MAGA crowd are the same.

Edited by Diana1969 on Sep 4th 2022 at 12:42:12 AM

I swear this is related but the the pact did lead to political cartoons of Hitler marrying Stalin

Like this one captioned "Wonder How long the honeymoon will last?

and also this where they tip hats to each other

Also I've read 1984 once when it was made free through amazon and the depressing tone means I have little desire to read it again,might try Brave New World though

Brave new world is not less depressing, maybe just less crushing.

"I'm not sure I understand this point. "

My point is that(and I said it very poorly, my mistake) is that for all realpolitik it is, it require a bit of dissonance to make a path between hardcore ideological enemy that you need to bridged one way or another. Party dosent do that because in the mutability they can always said the path was there and then mutate back to never being allies.

Is a exageration of sort of concept are cheap: if help the party to stay in power them it will.

"It's a motivator formed by societal and economic motivations. The MAGA platform is economic competition with China, strengthening militarism, crushing minority rights, condemning anything "un-American". This brewed for decades. They are certainly eclectic, but fascism is inherently eclectic. "

Even that is not set in stone: Being "Un-American" is a fairly nebolous concept that as it show it can exclude "right wing coup atempt" in jan 6 and trump downright stealing top secret documents because "Un-American" is "me and my pals", a few years ago russia was a enemy and now is almost and ideological ally, even crushing minority rights rise and fall depending how much useful is for any GOP at any given moment. Hell last election the republican platform was "whatever trump wanted" is one thing to be electic and another is having the consistency of goo.

Because if anything trumpist are exactly the kind of orwellian uttermesh the book is speak from: incapable of confronting other means of information, willing to change their objective at the drop of a hat and being media iliterate(that means, not disserting medias or being capable of fack check), many of them keep their total devotion to trump even at the face of facts.

What orwell didn't expect(for obvious reason) is the rise of the internet and other means of information, so he mostly speak on the idea that if the government can control all the means of information therefore it can reshape reallity in a sort of state-manded soplipism, one can see that in north korea, probably the biggest example of a orwellian state. But nowdays we have means to accept information and check facts so the fears of a orwellian state cant arise.

"but it's one that offers no solution to the dictatorship."

....Should he offer a solution? I said this because is one thing to argue about whatever he was right or not and another is arguing about the book should be pessimistic or not willing to give a tool for people to fight. Which is a far more utilitarian mindset for me.

If I have to guess I will said people resonate with orwell because....well, is hard not too, aside of echoing people disappointment with US capitalism and comunism falling in cold war and how their promise turn to be rubbish at best, downright brutal at worst, if anything I see more dislike for younger generations is probably part of a generational divide of some sort.

He's under no obligation to, but I think that plays into why there's been a bit of backlash against Orwell in this current generation (for many other reasons). With how things are in the U.S. specifically, with the rise of BLM and Antifa and an increased fight for labor rights, LGBT rights, and so on, Orwell's pessimistic outlook as shown in Animal Farm and 1984 feels almost out of touch. Obviously we cannot look at Orwell in a vacuum, his work has to be seen in the light of post-WWII society, with rising anti-communist sentiment and the reckoning with fascism upon its defeat, with people asking how fascism could come to power and analyzing it "post-mortem" (airquotes because, really, it never left, it just temporarily died in a few big countries).

With the younger generation, part of it is Orwell's work was heavily promoted during the Cold War for blatant anti-communist ends. It's no secret that Animal Farm was heavily pushed by American and British intelligence services specifically to combat communist influence. As such, Orwell winds up in the bin of "old white men" authors who the younger generation dismisses as dated. It's kind of a joke with people around my age about reading the "funny animal book" and how people use it like the bible to dismiss communist theory, and 1984 gets accused of being "rapey".

Now, again, I'm not here to argue communism. I'm talking solely about Orwell. But with how there's a growing radical sentiment in some countries due to various reasons (the growing economic recession, political abuses, right-wing nationalist sentiment, increasingly-organized fascists, so on and so forth), Orwell's pessimism just does not resonate in the same manner. I've seen a lot more people pointing out Orwell's conservative turn in the last few years of his life as proof of him being a reactionary, alongside increased criticism of "Shooting An Elephant". It's a massive contrast to the time when there was a genuine "Orwellmania", where David Bowie tried making a lavish homage to the book on his Diamond Dogs album, where Apple literally made a whole advertisement referencing the book. It's easy to forget that 1984 wasn't just a book, it was a huge cultural phenomenon.

Ironically, 1984 doesn't seem to get as much condemnation like Orwell's other works, though I've seen plenty of it. Animal Farm is the one work with the most rage directed against it, and I can see why, it's clumsily written and not a great metaphor in the first place. 1984, by comparison, is more subtle. But when 1984 depicts a story where raging against the system results in the protagonist being forced to obey it again, the tragedy just doesn't resonate as much in a world where people are fighting for their lives and want to change the system. They don't want to see a story where rebellion is met with continued subjugation.

Indeed is pretty much a generational divide, simply speaking the cynicsm many people turn near the end of the cold war and again at the start of the mileenium have being moving into something new, the same can said of brave new world who also have a downer ending(funny thing, the author said he probably need to show a counterpart to dystopian sociaty and he did in the island...and nobody really care about it). Nowdays there is a renew in fighting and revolutionary thinking(some good, some bad, but they are).

Also in the case of US is not surprising, that land everyone think they are a rebel even the facist. One have to look to other places to see how much the book holds: China, North korea, Russia is a good example.

Yeah, due to the time period the books were released in people often miss the point.

1984 is not a criticism of any specific kind of economic system, it's a critique of Totalitarianism in general. Orwell might have been a Communist but even he could probably see how brutally the Soviet Union had perverted that "for the people" vision.

Animal Farm was similar. It warned against the Full-Circle Revolution as a whole.