Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the light of the Charlie Hebdo attacks I've been thinking more in the line of Fahrenheit 451; the leftist fascism of banning everything that offends anyone.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
In the light of the Charlie Hebdo attacks I've been thinking more in the line of Fahrenheit 451; the leftist fascism of banning everything that offends anyone.

Um, what?

It's a sad day when people confuse free speech for censorship ain't it?

Eh, right wing goes to fascism. Left wing goes to communism. They both pretty much end up at the same place if you let them go far enough.

 Paradigm wrote:
Fascinating article. In many ways, I agree with it. 1984 is terrifyingly prophetic, and just as relevant now as it was 50 years ago.

On a side note, anyone who hasn't read the book should. It really is an excellent and timeless work that is brilliant on so many levels.

The revised version is better.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We haven't turned into the book as long as we can still ask the question "have we turned into the book yet".

This is a nice answer, but actually flawed.

The best way for totalitarianism to proliferate is if the populace are unaware of the control methods. We are a lot closer to 1984 than most people think, how close that actually means is not easy to ascertain. The relevance is that people are less free than they believe they are, and many of the losses of freedom are through draconian policy slowly implemented.
It also helps that the 'big brother' in question is not clearly identifiable. Our big brother may be the global banking infrastructure controlling via debt, national government controlling through fiat, some religions esp radical Islam, or the progressive concensus. when you add all four together you get a nasty mix up of control, you don't have 1984 with four separate big brothers, but it wont mean the average prole is any less fathed.

If you want to talk about "are we living in a totalitarian society" then your points have merit.

But your points also manage to refute the idea that we are living in a society like in 1984.

Unless you want to pretend that making the argument that having four big brothers that are not clearly identifiable is the same as having one clearly identified big brother in a cult of personality requiring open obedience while ignoring the fact that you are not locked in room 101 for even daring to make that comparison.

There is valid discussion to be had about totalitarianism and threats to freedoms and rights. But we are a very long way from 1984.

 LordofHats wrote:
I keep trying to tell people Google wants to take over the world but no one listens damnit!

I understand completely. In the process of trying to become outraged about it, it occurred to me that they can probably do it better than the people currently in charge of the world.

I'm still paralyzed with inability to know how I feel about it at this point.

 daedalus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I keep trying to tell people Google wants to take over the world but no one listens damnit!

I understand completely. In the process of trying to become outraged about it, it occurred to me that they can probably do it better than the people currently in charge of the world.

I'm still paralyzed with inability to know how I feel about it at this point.

All hail the megacorps! Now where's my cyberdeck?

 LordofHats wrote:
I keep trying to tell people Google wants to take over the world but no one listens damnit!

My thoughts on Google.

Video scarily related.



I still think Globalisation and unbridled capatalism is the most terrifying thing in the world.

Where the majority is dragged down to slum level and only the tiniest few have all the power.

Swathes of land in the other parts of the World ruined and turned into sweatshops.

Rainforest cut down for palm oil. Food crops turned into energy crops.

Capitalism seeks to homogenise everything into a great consuming mass.

Private entities controlling the governments more than they ever have. I think 80's Sci-Fi dystopia is closer to what we have or are on the cusp of having.




Obligatory Mosley as I'm sure he was probably an influence on 1984 in some way. Certainly the style.

I don't think google cares about the world. They've rented hangars, invested in SpaceX, and acquired numerous robotic companies. I think they want to conquer GoogleMars with an army of robots.

Here in Thailand. we are already there.

 Manchu wrote:
What's really doubleplus chilling to imagine is, what if he had written a book where future generations hysterico-lazily cite a dystopian sci fi novel to attack whatever they deem ungood? Eerily accurate right?

There are many parts of the world where 1984 would be considered paradise vs. what they are experiencing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I read both 1984 and Brave New World and they scared me. The most scary part of the books is that our governments are probably also reading it and getting boners of it.
So in the future, there will be a Brave New 1984!

I'd proffer the near future is far worse than either-its all the bad parts of Elysium, They Live, and Time Machine put together.

A wealthy uber class
automation
The Oppressed jobless.

So its looking a light more like 1905 Russia or July 1789 France than 1984.

 Frazzled wrote:
There are many parts of the world where 1984 would be considered paradise vs. what they are experiencing.

The book is generally flogged as an empty signifier: society will be awful if we ____, where leftists and rightists of all stripes may fill in the blank however they wish to justify their fear of their political opponents. If there is any value left in 1984, however, it will be along the lines of Frazzled's insight above: we should read the book wondering how such a society could actually be historically possible. It would probably require tremendous wealth inequality, for example. It would also probably require exactly the sort of scare-mongering that people often use the book itself to accomplish. Big Brother can't come to power unless he makes you terrified of what will happen if he doesn't.

or you think you know more - which engenders Big Sister.

Again, I'd bet good money the people in NK (ironical that) or certain ISIS controlled areas would be cheering in the streets.

Is it me or did the book spend an inordinate amount of time focused on the amount of butter(or was it margarine) each person could get?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Obligatory Mosley as I'm sure he was probably an influence on 1984 in some way. Certainly the style.

The most interesting thing about Sir Mosley's legacy, I think, is that ... well, you do actually live in Mosley's Britain in many ways. Not the obvious ways, of course. So far as I know, there is not the typical fascist glorification of military in British public life (we have that here in the US, albeit with strong critical opposition; see e.g., debate related to American Sniper). But when it comes to his economic theories, they have been very influential even if the influence itself is (understandably) denied.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There are many parts of the world where 1984 would be considered paradise vs. what they are experiencing.

The book is generally flogged as an empty signifier: society will be awful if we ____, where leftists and rightists of all stripes may fill in the blank however they wish to justify their fear of their political opponents. If there is any value left in 1984, however, it will be along the lines of Frazzled's insight above: we should read the book wondering how such a society could actually be historically possible. It would probably require tremendous wealth inequality, for example. It would also probably require exactly the sort of scare-mongering that people often use the book itself to accomplish. Big Brother can't come to power unless he makes you terrified of what will happen if he doesn't.

I find it more confusing that people focus so heavily on 1984 as a "this is the future of our society" rather than "this is the future of the Soviet Union and Communism at its worst possible outcome." The later turned out to be pretty well guessed on Orwell. The former is just the idiots of the world twisting Orwell's intent to their own purpose (very 1984 of them I might add, which is the irony of it all).

I'm more concerned about runaway capitalism to be honest. I think we have already reached a point where corporations are powerful enough to basically own politicians, and lobby for things like corporate tax breaks, and block laws that are designed to benefit workers, such as the minimum wage and the ability to create trade unions etc...

I think if left unchecked, these corporations will start to erode our rights and our standard of living in order to increase their profit margins (perhaps lead us into unnecessary wars even). Not because they are evil per say, just because it's kind of a Darwinian runaway train. Accountants and CEOs who don't increase profits will get replaced until they do. I think central banking is already an example of that. The USA being trillions in debt to the federal reserve is really obvious BS. Especially when you look at fractional reserve banking. They are charging interest on money that they never had in the first place (or only had about 10% of) so every 1% interest they charge is actually 10% interest, and the cash for the reserve was probably taxpayer money to begin with. Complete scam.

A government controlled by the people is really the only defense against that.

1984 is probably one of my favorite books, if not my favorite book of all time. I've read it... more times than i even remember.

That said ; Orwell was wrong. Huxley got it right. The biggest threat in the modern era is not that people will hide information from us, or change it so it's not the truth anymore via censorship and brutality. It's that the relevant will be drowned out in a sea of irrelevance dressed up to appear important.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There are many parts of the world where 1984 would be considered paradise vs. what they are experiencing.

The book is generally flogged as an empty signifier: society will be awful if we ____, where leftists and rightists of all stripes may fill in the blank however they wish to justify their fear of their political opponents. If there is any value left in 1984, however, it will be along the lines of Frazzled's insight above: we should read the book wondering how such a society could actually be historically possible. It would probably require tremendous wealth inequality, for example. It would also probably require exactly the sort of scare-mongering that people often use the book itself to accomplish. Big Brother can't come to power unless he makes you terrified of what will happen if he doesn't.

I find it more confusing that people focus so heavily on 1984 as a "this is the future of our society" rather than "this is the future of the Soviet Union and Communism at its worst possible outcome." The later turned out to be pretty well guessed on Orwell. The former is just the idiots of the world twisting Orwell's intent to their own purpose (very 1984 of them I might add, which is the irony of it all).

An excellent point ; Orwell was focusing on the Soviet Union, which he got dead on correct.

That said, while that was his focus, he was cognizant that he was writing a socio-political commentary that he wanted to stand the test of time. He was extremely politically savy, and there are several places where he is attributed to fearing that the British government, and others, were as susceptible to totalitarianism as Russia had been.


In that respect, that's what i mean when i say i think Orwell was less right than Huxley. I think Orwell's message was accutely more accurate in the short term, but Huxley's idea has stood the test of time much better.

We're not quite at 1984 levels of bad but we're getting closer all the time. It's crazy how prophetic Orwell was.

It's one of my favorite books of all time and I think one of the best of all time but I don't think I'll ever read it again. It's quite depressing.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm more concerned about runaway capitalism to be honest. I think we have already reached a point where corporations are powerful enough to basically own politicians, and lobby for things like corporate tax breaks, and block laws that are designed to benefit workers, such as the minimum wage and the ability to create trade unions etc...

I think if left unchecked, these corporations will start to erode our rights and our standard of living in order to increase their profit margins (perhaps lead us into unnecessary wars even). Not because they are evil per say, just because it's kind of a Darwinian runaway train. Accountants and CEOs who don't increase profits will get replaced until they do. I think central banking is already an example of that. The USA being trillions in debt to the federal reserve is really obvious BS. Especially when you look at fractional reserve banking. They are charging interest on money that they never had in the first place (or only had about 10% of) so every 1% interest they charge is actually 10% interest, and the cash for the reserve was probably taxpayer money to begin with. Complete scam.

A government controlled by the people is really the only defense against that.

Uh, that isn't actually a new invention, and corruption is as old as government itself. Remember, the East India Company was oppressing people and bribing kings before oil had even been discovered.

Also on 1984 being a "prediction" of the modern world, the very fact we have the ability to read 1984 proves it didn't happen. Huxley got it right, and I don't know if that was a good or bad thing.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm more concerned about runaway capitalism to be honest. I think we have already reached a point where corporations are powerful enough to basically own politicians, and lobby for things like corporate tax breaks, and block laws that are designed to benefit workers, such as the minimum wage and the ability to create trade unions etc...

I think if left unchecked, these corporations will start to erode our rights and our standard of living in order to increase their profit margins (perhaps lead us into unnecessary wars even). Not because they are evil per say, just because it's kind of a Darwinian runaway train. Accountants and CEOs who don't increase profits will get replaced until they do. I think central banking is already an example of that. The USA being trillions in debt to the federal reserve is really obvious BS. Especially when you look at fractional reserve banking. They are charging interest on money that they never had in the first place (or only had about 10% of) so every 1% interest they charge is actually 10% interest, and the cash for the reserve was probably taxpayer money to begin with. Complete scam.

A government controlled by the people is really the only defense against that.

Huxley got it right, and I don't know if that was a good or bad thing.

It is inestimably worse, in my opinion. Totalitarian states have a funny way of collapsing in on themselves either from internal or external pressure (or both). However a society that is bombarded by sybaritic indulgences will never even realize anythings amiss.

I almost made this point a few days ago but decided not to... but here goes. I was at work about 2 weeks ago or so. It was the day that the Patriots Deflate Gate happened. It was also the day that the ultimatum ran out for the ISIS hostages, and people were waiting to see what happened. What do you think people were talking about at the water cooler at work ?

Ditto today. Do you think people were talking about Jordan has now scheduled the possible prisoner swap candidate for possible execution now, or the 'wicked pissah of a catch dat Edelman made!'


The sea of irrelevance simultaneously making the relevant impossible to distinguish, and a drop in the ocean of noise.

Huxley's dystopian future on its face looks less scary than Orwell's, but fully explored, I think it's even more hopeless.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer the near future is far worse than either-its all the bad parts of Elysium, They Live, and Time Machine put together.

A wealthy uber class
automation
The Oppressed jobless.

So its looking a light more like 1905 Russia or July 1789 France than 1984.

I probably wouldn't put it in terms that extreme, but I have a hard time figuring out how increasingly sophisticated machines will produce anything other than a wealthy uber class and a mass of poverty.

I also can't figure out any answer other than making sure that my children inherit enough to put them in the uber class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The book is generally flogged as an empty signifier: society will be awful if we ____, where leftists and rightists of all stripes may fill in the blank however they wish to justify their fear of their political opponents. If there is any value left in 1984, however, it will be along the lines of Frazzled's insight above: we should read the book wondering how such a society could actually be historically possible.

While the specific threat of non-democratic socialism overtaking Western democracy disappeared long before we actually reached 1984, I think there is still a lot of value in the book as an examination of political oppression in general. While the book concentrates more on how people might be oppressed with various lies and pieces of technology, honestly that’s the more fantastical and weaker part of the book. The stronger element is in the character of O’Brien, in which we see how any ideology is just a fiction to cover over a basic lust for power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Is it me or did the book spend an inordinate amount of time focused on the amount of butter(or was it margarine) each person could get?

You should read Down and Out in Paris and London - endless descriptions of tea with two (slice of bread with butter on them). And remember the flashbacks in 1984, when he took food from his mother and younger child.

Between his time as a tramp, and the food shortages he suffered in the Spanish Civil War, I guess Orwell knew the power of hunger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I find it more confusing that people focus so heavily on 1984 as a "this is the future of our society" rather than "this is the future of the Soviet Union and Communism at its worst possible outcome." The later turned out to be pretty well guessed on Orwell.

It was set in the UK for a reason. People forget but extreme, non-democratic communism existed in the UK and other western countries, and it was often unchallenged, or even protected or endorsed by various labour movements and other left wing groups. 1984 is very much a warning against letting those people have any kind of legitimacy.

The former is just the idiots of the world twisting Orwell's intent to their own purpose (very 1984 of them I might add, which is the irony of it all).

Very good point


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
I think if left unchecked, these corporations will start to erode our rights and our standard of living in order to increase their profit margins (perhaps lead us into unnecessary wars even). Not because they are evil per say, just because it's kind of a Darwinian runaway train. Accountants and CEOs who don't increase profits will get replaced until they do. I think central banking is already an example of that. The USA being trillions in debt to the federal reserve is really obvious BS. Especially when you look at fractional reserve banking. They are charging interest on money that they never had in the first place (or only had about 10% of) so every 1% interest they charge is actually 10% interest, and the cash for the reserve was probably taxpayer money to begin with. Complete scam.

It really, really doesn't work that way. It sounds like you've listened to some youtube videos that basically have take a very complex subject like finance, and manipulated it to make you afraid. Don't get your lessons on complex ideas from youtube videos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haight wrote:
1984 is probably one of my favorite books, if not my favorite book of all time. I've read it... more times than i even remember.

That said ; Orwell was wrong. Huxley got it right. The biggest threat in the modern era is not that people will hide information from us, or change it so it's not the truth anymore via censorship and brutality. It's that the relevant will be drowned out in a sea of irrelevance dressed up to appear important.

Neither man was making a prediction, so I don’t think it’s right to say either 'got it right' or ‘got it wrong’. Huxley was writing a parody in response to earlier utopian science fiction. Orwell was writing a criticism of non-democratic socialism – it wasn’t so much ‘this is going to happen’ as ‘these people are turds’.

That said, I think both concepts, that either the truth will be hidden from us, or that we will be flooded with irrelevant information misses the real issue. The reality is that the truth will be placed squarely in front of us, and we won’t care. Scandals are brought up, given proper priority in the media, and then just nothing. People will say ‘that’s terrible but what do you want me to do’ and then go about their lives.

Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

If you go far enough in one direction, you'll eventually end up on the other side.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

No, the name of the organisation in 1984 is Ingsoc, which derived from English Socialism. The facade of beliefs of the party are directly taken from socialism, and the willingness of the party to disregard those principles in order to pursue and maintain power is Orwell's direct attack on non-democratic socialism.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

If you go far enough in one direction, you'll eventually end up on the other side.

Yes, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

No, the name of the organisation in 1984 is Ingsoc, which derived from English Socialism. The facade of beliefs of the party are directly taken from socialism, and the willingness of the party to disregard those principles in order to pursue and maintain power is Orwell's direct attack on non-democratic socialism.

Animal Farm is basically the history of The Soviet Union done with Animals. They're all equal but some are more equal than other.

1984 is about the complete control of a population (fascism) not socialization or collectivism. One of the least acknowledged reasons fascism is an evil ideology is the fascism needs enemies. Either enemies within or enemies without. That's why it usually leads to either war or persecution of vulnerable groups. That is what 1984 is exploring. That's why there is eternal war the state needs an enemy and is quite happy that Eurasia and EastAsia are there to provide it. The 2 minute hate etc.
Big Brother and The Spies keep tabs on the enemies within. The point is everyone is kept afraid all the time.

That's why they are basically companion pieces; each one exploring/satirizing each extreme of the political spectrum.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

If you go far enough in one direction, you'll eventually end up on the other side.

Yes, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

No, the name of the organisation in 1984 is Ingsoc, which derived from English Socialism. The facade of beliefs of the party are directly taken from socialism, and the willingness of the party to disregard those principles in order to pursue and maintain power is Orwell's direct attack on non-democratic socialism.

Animal Farm is basically the history of The Soviet Union done with Animals. They're all equal but some are more equal than other.

1984 is about the complete control of a population (fascism) not socialization or collectivism. One of the least acknowledged reasons fascism is an evil ideology is the fascism needs enemies. Either enemies within or enemies without. That's why it usually leads to either war or persecution of vulnerable groups. That is what 1984 is exploring. That's why there is eternal war the state needs an enemy and is quite happy that Eurasia and EastAsia are there to provide it. The 2 minute hate etc.
Big Brother and The Spies keep tabs on the enemies within. The point is everyone is kept afraid all the time.

That's why they are basically companion pieces; each one exploring/satirizing each extreme of the political spectrum.

No. 1984 is about Communist totalitarianism. If you want a book on facism, pick up Starship Troopers.

All totalitarian systems make use of "enemies" to keep people in line. Do you think Stalin didn't persecute people within the USSR to keep people focused on things other than how poorly he was running the country? Stalin just went after a wider variety of people than Hitler did, and he had a better PR machine, too. The USSR had the KGB, who did a fair amount of internal spying to keep people in line. Just because all totalitarian systems have similar traits, that does not make all totalitarian systems facist. The government in 1984 is explicitly stated in the text to be communist, which makes it kind of hard for it to be facist. The fact that collectivist farming techniques aren't discussed in the text doesn't mean the government is facist; it just means that collectivism farming techniques had nothing to with the purpose of the story: to show the dehumanization of individuals under a totalitarian regime.

squidhills wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

If you go far enough in one direction, you'll eventually end up on the other side.

Yes, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't 1984 more about facism? Animal Farm is about communism.

No, the name of the organisation in 1984 is Ingsoc, which derived from English Socialism. The facade of beliefs of the party are directly taken from socialism, and the willingness of the party to disregard those principles in order to pursue and maintain power is Orwell's direct attack on non-democratic socialism.

Animal Farm is basically the history of The Soviet Union done with Animals. They're all equal but some are more equal than other.

1984 is about the complete control of a population (fascism) not socialization or collectivism. One of the least acknowledged reasons fascism is an evil ideology is the fascism needs enemies. Either enemies within or enemies without. That's why it usually leads to either war or persecution of vulnerable groups. That is what 1984 is exploring. That's why there is eternal war the state needs an enemy and is quite happy that Eurasia and EastAsia are there to provide it. The 2 minute hate etc.
Big Brother and The Spies keep tabs on the enemies within. The point is everyone is kept afraid all the time.

That's why they are basically companion pieces; each one exploring/satirizing each extreme of the political spectrum.

No. 1984 is about Communist totalitarianism. If you want a book on facism, pick up Starship Troopers.

All totalitarian systems make use of "enemies" to keep people in line. Do you think Stalin didn't persecute people within the USSR to keep people focused on things other than how poorly he was running the country? Stalin just went after a wider variety of people than Hitler did, and he had a better PR machine, too. The USSR had the KGB, who did a fair amount of internal spying to keep people in line. Just because all totalitarian systems have similar traits, that does not make all totalitarian systems facist. The government in 1984 is explicitly stated in the text to be communist, which makes it kind of hard for it to be facist. The fact that collectivist farming techniques aren't discussed in the text doesn't mean the government is facist; it just means that collectivism farming techniques had nothing to with the purpose of the story: to show the dehumanization of individuals under a totalitarian regime.

Often the word communism is used interchangeable with totalitarianism. The don't mean the same thing but if you are saying 1984 is about totalitarianism then I won't argue against that. There isn't much difference between totalitarianism and fascism. But it is not about Marxism or socialized economic systems.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


Often the word communism is used interchangeable with totalitarianism. The don't mean the same thing but if you are saying 1984 is about totalitarianism then I won't argue against that. There isn't much difference between totalitarianism and fascism. But it is not about Marxism or socialized economic systems.

I don't use the word totalitarianism interchangably with communism. I know what words mean and I use them properly. Communism is not the same thing as totalitarianism, but most communist governments have historically been totalitarian (to varying degrees... Stalin's USSR was a very harsh place, but it wasn't as bad as the Khmer Rogue's Cambodia). We haven't had as many facist governments as we have had communist ones, but the facist ones also had marked totalitarian tendencies (again, to varying degrees... Franco's Spain wasn't beer and skittles, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Hitler's Germany).

The government in 1984 is communist. It says as much in the text. The fact that you keep going on about how the book didn't go on about the economics of socialism, therefore the government couldn't have been communist, seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to accept that communism could possibly be turned to evil.