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.

squidhills wrote:

 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.

No you're putting words in my mouth. The fact communism inevitably turns evil is what Animal Farm is about.

What part of the text "says it's about communism"?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
[qu

What part of the text "says it's about communism"?

I never said it was about communism. I said the government in the book is communist. I'll avoid putting words in your mouth if you return the courtesy.

How exactly is it impossible for 1984 to be about Communism because Animal Farm is about Communism (which Animal Farm isn't per se, Animal Farm is about the Bolshivek Revolution and Post-Revolution Leninism)? It's entirely possible for an author to write two works about the same thing...

1984 is about Communism. The book draws numerous parallels to various events of the 1920's and 30's in Soviet Russia (one of the characters is even written to look like Trotsky) and the Ministry of Peace is just a giant allegory for the NKVD (Orwell even references underhandly members of the NKVD in the book). In many ways 1984 is the continuation and evolution of many of the themes Orwell touched on in Animal Farm, but included new developments that occurred after his novella was written.

squidhills wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
[qu

What part of the text "says it's about communism"?

I never said it was about communism. I said the government in the book is communist. I'll avoid putting words in your mouth if you return the courtesy.

Fine, in what way is Oceania not fascist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
How exactly is it impossible for 1984 to be about Communism because Animal Farm is about Communism (which Animal Farm isn't per se, Animal Farm is about the Bolshivek Revolution and Post-Revolution Leninism)? It's entirely possible for an author to write two works about the same thing...

1984 is about Communism. The book draws numerous parallels to various events of the 1920's and 30's in Soviet Russia (one of the characters is even written to look like Trotsky) and the Ministry of Peace is just a giant allegory for the NKVD (Orwell even references underhandly members of the NKVD in the book). In many ways 1984 is the continuation and evolution of many of the themes Orwell touched on in Animal Farm, but included new developments that occurred after his novella was written.

Once again I'm sure you're talking about Totalitarianism Communism but I think at this point we're just arguing semantics. There's not much difference between fascism and Stalinism especially in what 1984 is covering: personal freedom.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
[qu

What part of the text "says it's about communism"?

I never said it was about communism. I said the government in the book is communist. I'll avoid putting words in your mouth if you return the courtesy.

Fine, in what way is Oceania not fascist?

Once again I'm sure you're talking about Totalitarianism Communism but I think at this point we're just arguing semantics. There's not much difference between fascism and Stalinism especially in what 1984 is covering: personal freedom.

First of all, facism is more than just "the government is mean to people", which seems to be your entire definition of the word. That seems to be where this argument is stemming from. Facism has certain economic principles tied into all of the hatemongering and fearmongering that stand in stark opposition to communism. Namely, facism doesn't have a problem with capitalism. Corporations and individuals are allowed to turn a profit in a facist country. There is no private ownership or generation of wealth in a communist state.

Stalin wasn't facist by any accepted definition of the word, no matter how many of his own people he killed or oppressed. This is because killing people and oppressing people is not unique to facism.

Oceania is communist, it is apparent in the text and by the terminology used throughout the book. Note that people in Airstrip One who aren't members of The Party are called "Proles". That is short for "proletariat", a word you encounter a lot in communist philosophy, as the struggles of the proletariat are central to communist ideology. They tend to not show up at all in facist ideology.

squidhills wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
[qu

What part of the text "says it's about communism"?

I never said it was about communism. I said the government in the book is communist. I'll avoid putting words in your mouth if you return the courtesy.

Fine, in what way is Oceania not fascist?

Once again I'm sure you're talking about Totalitarianism Communism but I think at this point we're just arguing semantics. There's not much difference between fascism and Stalinism especially in what 1984 is covering: personal freedom.

First of all, facism is more than just "the government is mean to people", which seems to be your entire definition of the word.

I'm just trying to have a conversation about the poiltics of 1984 and the fictional state of Oceania but for you it has become some kind of battke you must win - with starwman arguments no less. I'm not interested in that.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


I'm just trying to have a conversation about the poiltics of 1984 and the fictional state of Oceania but for you it has become some kind of battke you must win - with starwman arguments no less. I'm not interested in that.

I'm not trying to win a battle, I'm trying to point out that you are taking a stance on flawed information. You've stated repeatedly that Oceania isn't communist by detailing the ways that facism is bad, without seeming to understand that those bad traits are not unique to facism and have a tendency to appear in many types of totalitarian governments, including communist ones.

Is 1984 about communism? Strictly speakinmg, no it isn't. It is about totalitarianism. However, the totalitarian government depicted in the book is one that is communist, not facist. This is made clear in the text of the novel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


1984 is about the complete control of a population (fascism) not socialization or collectivism.

Here is the problem that is the core of the argument. That isn't the definition of facism. That is the definition of totalitarianism. And in that regard, you are correct that the complete control of a population *is* the theme of the novel. You're just using the wrong word to describe it.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Change socialism to Totalitarianism, and okay, I think we have enough common ground on Orwell to agree on.


However, I do not agree at all that Huxley was just writing a parody of earlier sci fi utopias. I'm almost not sure how one even draws that conclusion from reading the book, but that's just me. Maybe i'm reading too much into it (it's also one of my favorite books of all time). You are nearly bombarded with overt references of the completely banal and irrelevant taking almost religion-like levels of precedence over everything else. Again, though, maybe that was just my take on it. I'm a bit of a post-modernist with my classics.


Your final point is a good one, and i don't think is in contravention of the point I believe Huxley was making in BNW, and i think it dovetails and goes hand in hand nicely with the "Sea of Irrelevance masking the Relevant" with its own dash of "And even if we recognize the relevant, our apathy towards it is insurmountable".


Good points all in all. FWIW, i always like reading your posts. I find you're one of the few people that really does try to engage in honest point and counterpoint rather than just defaulting to absolutism.

 Haight wrote:
I'm almost not sure how one even draws that conclusion from reading the book,

Because Huxley was a satirist. Everything he wrote was satire. It's also well known (and publicized for those who look) that Brave New World was inspired by H.G. Wells' books A Modern Utopia and Men Like God (both very utopian books) and that Huxley began writing Brave New World as a parody of those two works. And like 1984, Brave New World spends an awful lot of time referencing current events (well, events that were current at the time) and drawing direct allusions to them for a book people keep pretending is actually about the future. Brave New World is about the Industrial Revolution and was also very Anti-Americanization. Huxley saw American culture as decadent and hedonistic, which inspired the society he ultimately depicted in Brave New World.

Yeah. Seriously. Brave New World is a book about how much America sucks. Personally I think Huxley was just jelly about how awesome our 20's were until that whole depression thing

 LordofHats wrote:

 Haight wrote:
I'm almost not sure how one even draws that conclusion from reading the book,

Because Huxley was a satirist. Everything he wrote was satire. It's also well known (and publicized for those who look) that Brave New World was inspired by H.G. Wells' books A Modern Utopia and Men Like God (both very utopian books) and that Huxley began writing Brave New World as a parody of those two works. And like 1984, Brave New World spends an awful lot of time referencing current events (well, events that were current at the time) and drawing direct allusions to them for a book people keep pretending is actually about the future. Brave New World is about the Industrial Revolution and was also very Anti-Americanization. Huxley saw American culture as decadent and hedonistic, which inspired the society he ultimately depicted in Brave New World.

Yeah. Seriously. Brave New World is a book about how much America sucks. Personally I think Huxley was just jelly about how awesome our 20's were until that whole depression thing

Anti American decadence, definitely fair. I can see that, though i haven't ever seen it referenced to (full disclosure: the last time i looked at the book with anything more than "I want to read this" motivations was probably 17 years ago, so there's that too... opinions and insights into the book could very well have changed, which is also valid).

But, honest question.

How can we in the same breath say "No no, he was a satirist, it was just a parody of other (bad) modern Utopias", and then say "It was a an anti-american decadence / industrial revolution commentary" ? Those seem two very, very different motivations to me. Taking the piss out of other Utopian works seems one thing, while actively working to create a critique of American rising 20th century culture and the industrial revolution as a whole seems another.


Not saying either one isn't valid, but again, I think if we believe that fiction is post-modern, the intent of the author as time goes on becomes less important than the reception. I think few people would read BNW and immediately go "Oh that Aldous. Always writing parodies on other Utopian novels!", but rather would come out with some kind of commentary on society ... which is where i can totally see criticism of American culture (for the era), and even industrialization. It's not like the Satiricon, or an issue of The Onion where what's going on is very, very clearly parody and satire.

Honestly the only reason i'm beating this dead horse is that i think BNW, as "known" as it is, doesn't quite get the credit it deserves. It would be in my top five best books of the 20th century.


I'll make a couple examples of my points here here:


Tolkien (to use something accessible to everyone) wrote the Hobbit, and the Hobbit for a long time had this pseudo movement around it that it was allegorical in relation to WWI. Afterall, Tolkien served in WWI, and the movement of WWI writers writing either about or as backdrop the Great War was pretty common (Hemingway, Remarque, Robert Graves, Sigfried Sassoon, etc etc). And reading the book, there is some pretty decent allegorical undertones to the book. Tolkien however hated allegory as a literary device, likening it to the poor mans metaphor ; he was so insistent about this that in the foreward to one edition of the Hobbit (i think the late seventies edition), there is an acknowledgement about how the book is in no way allegorical at all.


If Art is not post modern (meaning, that the arts "meaning" is greater than the artists sole intentions, and moreover, that its meaning can evolve over time and mean different things to different people), then lets look at abstract painters through this lens. How could one, without direct access to the artist, ever discern the "one and only true intent" behind a Jackson Pollock ? The answer is you couldn't ; abstractionism is the embodiment of post-modernism in painting art.


One things for sure, I now want to go back and read BNW (again)

 Haight wrote:


How can we in the same breath say "No no, he was a satirist, it was just a parody of other (bad) modern Utopias", and then say "It was a an anti-american decadence / industrial revolution commentary" ?

Because critique is the purpose of satire.

Taking the piss out of other Utopian works seems one thing, while actively working to create a critique of American rising 20th century culture and the industrial revolution as a whole seems another.

Nothing about these two things are at odds.

the intent of the author as time goes on becomes less important than the reception.

Death of the Author is perfectly valid, but the problem is that people often subscribe to 1984 and Brave New World (as well as their authors), ideas and interpretations that are frankly, shallow and inaccurate. People say this and that about them, but often times the claims are unsupported by the text, or they subscribe to the authors an intent that is clearly not theirs. In both of these cases, the authors were quite clear with their intent. We know exactly what they were writing about, why they wrote it, and what they thought about the subject. Huxley and Orwell were both very vocal and outspoken during their lives. We can go beyond their meaning, but death of the author is not a free hand to make up whatever meaning we want.

Tolkien (to use something accessible to everyone) wrote the Hobbit, and the Hobbit for a long time had this pseudo movement around it that it was allegorical in relation to WWI.

And this is kind of what I mean by the above. People constantly said 'Tolkien meant this and that' but while these were useful interpretations, Tolkien hated that people kept calling his work allegory. This was his literary ideal, but Tolkien's thoughts on it does not necessarily translate to other authors.

You know what I never got about the fear of major corporate global take over in the name of increased profits? If they enslave us all and conquer the Earth, who's going to buy their gak?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they enslave us all and conquer the Earth, who's going to buy their gak?

All the slaves with no choice but to buy their gak?

See episode 2 (i think it was) of The Black Mirror.

 LordofHats wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they enslave us all and conquer the Earth, who's going to buy their gak?

All the slaves with no choice but to buy their gak?

Yeah, but you don't generally pay slaves a wage. So where are they getting the money to buy the stuff that they have no choice to buy?

Although, if we define "slavery" a little more broadly, into economic slavery, then the evil corporation's plan might work. That's where you get a "Company Store" situation cropping up, where workers are paid so poorly that they can only afford to shop in the store that is owned by the company they work for. Kind of like how Walmart operates now, actually.

squidhills wrote:
Yeah, but you don't generally pay slaves a wage. So where are they getting the money to buy the stuff that they have no choice to buy?

As you note later in your post, Chattel Slavery, is not the only kind of slavery.

EDIT; This link might be more useful

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

No need for comments like this. Reds8n

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.

Fascism is far more complex than that. And more to the point, the hard line socialism that Orwell was writing about in 1984, the kind in practice in Stalinist Russia, the kind that Orwell believed would be needed enemies just as much as any kind of fascism. Trotsky, counter-revolutionaries, capitalists, all that stuff... I figure you've probably heard of that before.

But let's get back to the point I already explained to you - do you really think Orwell sat down to write a book about fascism and started by calling the evil organisation an abbreviation of English Socialism? What the hell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

It's isn't about socialised economic systems, in that it isn't about all possible socialism. Orwell was a socialist after all. But the really, really big point, the whole of both Animal Farm and 1984, was to distinguish between the non-democratic, totalitarian socialist hell-holes in states like China and Russia, and the kind of progressive socialism Orwell believed in, in which economic equality advanced along side the maintenance and even increase of personal freedom.

With GPS devices in our cars, cameras and microphones in our cell phones, security cameras being offered for INSIDE our houses, and all of this being wireless it seems like we are marching forward to a Orwellian nation. Each thing by itself is not much concern but consider all the things I listed plus every text, phone conversation and Facebook post saved on some server somewhere else and there is much cause for concern. Perhaps even THIS message will be archived and scrutinized by the watchers for whatever reason they use to justify it.

 WarAngel wrote:
With GPS devices in our cars, cameras and microphones in our cell phones, security cameras being offered for INSIDE our houses, and all of this being wireless it seems like we are marching forward to a Orwellian nation. Each thing by itself is not much concern but consider all the things I listed plus every text, phone conversation and Facebook post saved on some server somewhere else and there is much cause for concern. Perhaps even THIS message will be archived and scrutinized by the watchers for whatever reason they use to justify it.

I remember hearing an ex CIA guy talk about this in an interview. I can't find the original thing but it was essentially what they've tried to do for years and was opposed thoroughly is now done willingly by the masses themselves.

It's mind boggling.

 Haight wrote:
However, I do not agree at all that Huxley was just writing a parody of earlier sci fi utopias.

Pretty loose wording on my part. Not just a parody of the utopian fiction of the time, but also a satire of people. To paraphrase myself, it wasn't so much 'this is going to happen' as 'people are turds'

Good points all in all. FWIW, i always like reading your posts. I find you're one of the few people that really does try to engage in honest point and counterpoint rather than just defaulting to absolutism.

Thanks, I've enjoyed your posts as well. I have a growing suspicion that we probably don't agree on very much , but from what I've seen your opinions seem pretty well thought through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haight wrote:
Not saying either one isn't valid, but again, I think if we believe that fiction is post-modern, the intent of the author as time goes on becomes less important than the reception. I think few people would read BNW and immediately go "Oh that Aldous. Always writing parodies on other Utopian novels!", but rather would come out with some kind of commentary on society ... which is where i can totally see criticism of American culture (for the era), and even industrialization. It's not like the Satiricon, or an issue of The Onion where what's going on is very, very clearly parody and satire.

Point taken, we should focus less on what Huxley intended, and more on how the substance of the book feels to a reader today. However, to take part in that conversation I'd probably have to have read that book in the last ten years, so I'll bow out

Tolkien however hated allegory as a literary device, likening it to the poor mans metaphor ; he was so insistent about this that in the foreward to one edition of the Hobbit (i think the late seventies edition), there is an acknowledgement about how the book is in no way allegorical at all.

As always, the truth is so much more complex than that. Tolkien certainly said some strong stuff about allegory, but he also wrote stuff that could only be seen as allegory. Leaf by Niggle is a really nice short story, but it's also about as unsubtle as allegory can get. It's about an artist who creates simply for the sake of creation, who upon his death eventually moves to the world of his creation. There's also a bunch of other stuff, of course, but if you're interested you can find the story on-line for free.

Anyhow, I think while the story is an allegory (showing Tolkien didn't hate them enough not to write one), it also showed why he hated the allegorical interpretation of his work - because the purpose of Middle Earth was Middle Earth. That said, whatever Tolkien felt, I agree that people today should look for their own meaning in his work. The reason the allegorical interpretation is bad isn't because Tolkien didn't intend it, but because the allegorical interpretation is much less interesting that a straight forward reading.

Orwell, of course, is a very different beast, he was a political commentator first and foremost, all works and characters were always subservient to the political point he wanted to make. Which is why his fiction works are great ways in which to study politics, but aren't that great as simple works of fiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
You know what I never got about the fear of major corporate global take over in the name of increased profits? If they enslave us all and conquer the Earth, who's going to buy their gak?

I think the idea is that by the time they're capable of enslaving people and overtaking governments they're not really in the business of selling stuff anymore, but are their own private fiefdoms.

Here is a letter that Huxley Wrote to Orwell, I thought some of you might enjoy reading it.


"n case you aren’t aware, Aldous Huxley was George Orwell’s French teacher at Eton College. The below letter contains Huxley’s brief review and initial thoughts on Orwell’s iconic masterpiece.

Wrightwood. Cal.

21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

 easysauce wrote:
Here is a letter that Huxley Wrote to Orwell, I thought some of you might enjoy reading it.

That was great, thanks. It shows my understanding of how Huxley saw his own work was pretty far from the mark, so thanks for showing me that.


Interesting tit-bit I stumbled on while reading about an entirely different subject the other day - Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were both on a list of British subjects who were to be shot on sight during Operation Sea Lion - the German plan to invade Great Britain.

That Aldous Huxley had been living in the US for about five years at that point is a decent indicator of how half-assed so much of the Nazi planning was