Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I read the book in high school, about 1954, and Yes, I dead it again in 1983. Its reas essence was in Goldstein's "book within the book", which explained how and why ehe 1984 culture came to be, The rest of the story was just fluff, whatever sensationalism was need to sell a book. It was the Goldsstin subplot that made the whole work of academic value.
I was astonished in '84 that the book was soft-pedaled, until I reread it, and realized it was us, not them, who were largely responsible for the "wasteful" (Orwell's word) military spending with no tactical goals. Yes, some proved fruitful in other ways, but we may have spent less for electronic research than on fuels for war game exercises.
And, as Orwell said, it is economically indisputable that gains have favored the rich elite, as intended, with relatively little to the working class. An Orwell-ward slope that was already visible by 1984, and ignored. And "ignored" is my main point.
The only reason I bring it up now, is that 1984 is exactly the midpoint of Orwells prospective and our retrospective.
Except for admitting the book was "fluff" (except for the Goldstein portion), you are simply repeating yourself.
If you had understood the book and not dismissed it as fluff, or works to fit your own personal agenda, you would understand there is really no rich elite in the novel. There is an inner party, we only see O'Brien, yeah he isn't subject to rations and has chocolate and wine, lives in an apartment. But hardly the lifestyle of the rich and famous. The party exerts power for powers sake; not for personal enrichment, luxury, any of that. That is actually explained in the novel.
Again putting in historical perspective, Goldstein is based on Leon Trotsky who was part of the original communist revolution in Russia, later rejected Stalin and was later assasinated with an ice pick by Stalin's goons.
Except for admitting the book was "fluff" (except for the Goldstein portion), you are simply repeating yourself.
If you had understood the book and not dismissed it as fluff, or works to fit your own personal agenda, you would understand there is really no rich elite in the novel. There is an inner party, we only see O'Brien, yeah he isn't subject to rations and has chocolate and wine, lives in an apartment. But hardly the lifestyle of the rich and famous. The party exerts power for powers sake; not for personal enrichment, luxury, any of that. That is actually explained in the novel.
Again putting in historical perspective, Goldstein is based on Leon Trotsky who was part of the original communist revolution in Russia, later rejected Stalin and was later assasinated with an ice pick by Stalin's goons.
Yes, there was an elite in the book, but they were invisible to Winston and the readers. Goldtein explained the purpose of systematic waste was to prevent upward mobility, conserving thee existing exclusivity of access to elite status. A concept the British readers grasped. There was no other way to block economic expansion to the wannabe classes, once technology made that certain..
Yes, there was an elite in the book, but they were invisible to Winston and the readers. Goldtein explained the purpose of systematic waste was to prevent upward mobility, conserving thee existing exclusivity of access to elite status. A concept the British readers grasped. There was no other way to block economic expansion to the wannabe classes, once technology made that certain..
The elite were the inner party yes (we do see that, although only in O'Brien). I already said that, and now you are giving me the context (the depressed English economy at the time), which I also told you from the beginning. So where are you going here? You aren't added anything new.
But I see you didn't address the main difference in what you perceive as the analogy to modern times. This is what confuses you - there is no "rich elite" as I said previously. That's not the goal of the inner party as, once again, the purpose of the elite in Orwell's book wasn't to gain riches, but to gain power and control: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. "
Why would anybody want power, except to abuse it? Power by itself is never the goal. If Orwell said that and meant that, I would differ., but I suspect he knew the difference. Big Brother's cronies still wanted, and got, what power would afford. I bet it was fast cars and women. recruited from the "anti-sex league" (which also sells books).
Orwell and Marx saw communist economic manipulation as a means to an end. For Marx, it was to raise the bottom standard. For Orwell, it was to perpetuate the bottom standard. The agenda-driven anti-communists failed to consider anything but the tool, and judged by that alone.
Sadly, Marxism required virtue, but human nature was Orwellian instead, so they both ended badl..
Why would anybody want power, except to abuse it? Power by itself is never the goal. If Orwell said that and meant that, I would differ., but I suspect he knew the difference. Big Brother's cronies still wanted, and got, what power would afford. I bet it was fast cars and women. recruited from the "anti-sex league" (which also sells books).
Orwell and Marx saw communist economic manipulation as a means to an end. For Marx, it was to raise the bottom standard. For Orwell, it was to perpetuate the bottom standard. The agenda-driven anti-communists failed to consider anything but the tool, and judged by that alone.
Sadly, Marxism required virtue, but human nature was Orwellian instead, so they both ended badl..
The quote in my previous post was from Orwell's novel, attributed to the inner party member O'Brian, as is the below:
"Power is not a means; it is an end...The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
Now Winston also thinks the goals of Ingsoc were to manage society and it's citizens for the greater social good. O'Brien likewise scoffs at that idea. Orwell here is referring to the betrayal of all these people's revolution that popped up in the early 20th century, mainly the marxist ideals that turned into the totalitarian nightmare of Stalinist Russia, and also a warning to future "peoples" revolutions. Also, Orwell looked at the the contemporary brutal dictators of that time - Hitler and Stalin. None of them really lived in opulent extravagance although they had access to the all the riches of there country. Stalin it was said owned very little personal items - an old army coat he wore daily, a pipe. Wealth meant nothing to him. So Orwell asked himself what was there motivation? Power for powers sake.
This also a quote from 1984, attributed to O'Brien (this guy gets all the best lines):
"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."
Why would anybody want power, except to abuse it? Power by itself is never the goal. If Orwell said that and meant that, I would differ., but I suspect he knew the difference. Big Brother's cronies still wanted, and got, what power would afford. I bet it was fast cars and women. recruited from the "anti-sex league" (which also sells books).
Orwell and Marx saw communist economic manipulation as a means to an end. For Marx, it was to raise the bottom standard. For Orwell, it was to perpetuate the bottom standard. The agenda-driven anti-communists failed to consider anything but the tool, and judged by that alone.
Sadly, Marxism required virtue, but human nature was Orwellian instead, so they both ended badl..
Any number of psychologists would disagree with you. For some people, power over others is a drug. The details of such disorders are in the textbooks and not relevant to this forum.
Why would anybody want power, except to abuse it? Power by itself is never the goal. If Orwell said that and meant that, I would differ., but I suspect he knew the difference. Big Brother's cronies still wanted, and got, what power would afford. I bet it was fast cars and women. recruited from the "anti-sex league" (which also sells books).
Orwell and Marx saw communist economic manipulation as a means to an end. For Marx, it was to raise the bottom standard. For Orwell, it was to perpetuate the bottom standard. The agenda-driven anti-communists failed to consider anything but the tool, and judged by that alone.
Sadly, Marxism required virtue, but human nature was Orwellian instead, so they both ended badl..
Nope, under communism all people were to be equal. There was a lot less difference in compensation between people who are at the top of the party and the common man in the USSR than in the USA. Marx did not wish to raise the bottom standard. He wanted society as a whole to share in both the bounty and scarcity of the products of man's labor.
The anti sex league wasn't about banning sex per see. It was about restricting sex to marriage(which many Christians would approve). The difference is that marriage in Orwell's society was arranged by the state to people who are generically compatible(eugenics) and the USSR never did that. Fast cars do not exist because they are not produced. The state determines how many of what cars are produced and to whom they are given(or can be purchased by) at what price. In addition even in our society money can not only buy women, but can be used to bride the cops, hire a good lawyer and get off scot free. Under communism because the party makes decisions high level party members have more influence than politicians normally would have.
When George Orwell wrote 1984, in 1947, he was predicting 37 years into the future. How accurately did he see what was to come? Now, another 37 years have passed -- is it more of the same?
Obviously the book was a bit of an exaggeration, even now. Lockdowns were Orwellian. The security since 911 has been Orwellian. Both were largely theater.
Topping this is the naming of the committee at my synagogue of the "Reopening Committee" which has really dragged its feet in allowing the synagogue to reopen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
