Drzhen
13-08-2005, 07:27
Free online 1984 copy. (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)
After recently viewing 1984 again, and reading the book a few more times, and comparing with other dytopian and otherwise negative outlooks on an orderly society, I have some questions I'd like to pose to people who might have their own personal insight, and some clarifications of my own on questions I have seen here.
I'd like to start with Oligarchial Collectivism. At first, the book was a bit confusing about the role of power. It makes clear that the aim of the Party is power for its own sake, but I had some trouble understanding how having power would be enjoyable if no one really wins, and if no one really enjoys life at all. Until I saw the movie, at the part where the memories of Julia are being replaced with O'Brien, and Winston and O'Brien are in the "Golden Country". "You are the Party." I understand, I think, the role of power. I thought it was individual, as in all normal societies. Oceania was not normal, and I failed to see that. In a warped, inverted, altruistic way, the individuals comprising the Party dedicate themselves to the suffering, the torture, the brainwashing, the destruction, of other individuals, as a form of power, and control. It doesn't make logical sense because frankly, the Party is not logical. "Sometimes 2+2=5, sometimes 3, sometimes 4, sometimes all at once." I never really believed in any objective opinion of evil, but after analyzing 1984 for myself, I think that there is no logical or human way to deny that the system set in place by the Party is not inherently evil. Another motto for the Party, something I think should have been included with the other Three, should be:
Power is Collective
Fascist Communism
I made a note on "fascist communism". It's my opinion that all state-systems supposedly obeying communist values are fascist societies under the guise of communism. Why do I say this? For several reasons. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism) states that "fascism" is:
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Now, let's think about Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's USSR, for starters. Italy could hardly be said to have espoused racist tendencies. Yet it was fascist because its authority was centralized under Il Duce, its economy was tightly regulated and controlled, it was fiercely nationalist, and suppression of opposing elements was enforced. Germany was much the same, but with enhanced racist elements. The mere fact racism played a part in the way Nazi Germany operated goes to show that the fabric of Nazi German society could not have been maintained without an enemy; in their case, an enemy deemed inferior, and thus, subversive, to 'great' German society. Spain was roughly on par with Italian fascism, as with Portugal. But as for the USSR?
Q: But wasn't it communist?
A: No. Communism, by definition, is the abolition, or the withering away of a centralized government by localized communes.
Q: But didn't planned economy, propaganda, and the fact they had a "Red" and, later on, a "Soviet" Armed Forces make it, at least, socialist?
A: No. Communism and socialism are two different things. "Soviet" is the Russian equivalent word for "commune", or even "community". Planned economy was never part of Marxist rhetoric. In fact, Marx never laid down the blueprint for a Communist society. Nor did any other Communists of his day.
I rest my case.
The Chestnut Tree Cafe
I am confused by the Chestnut Tree Cafe. The fact that people who were "cured" by the Party go to this place, have clove-flavored gin, and sit around playing chess crying doesn't make much metaphorical sense to me. And in practicality, in the eyes of the Party, I see no purpose for the place at all. And even more mysterious, is the ever ambiguous "on the house" by the waiter. What the hell is going on, what am I missing in this picture?
After recently viewing 1984 again, and reading the book a few more times, and comparing with other dytopian and otherwise negative outlooks on an orderly society, I have some questions I'd like to pose to people who might have their own personal insight, and some clarifications of my own on questions I have seen here.
I'd like to start with Oligarchial Collectivism. At first, the book was a bit confusing about the role of power. It makes clear that the aim of the Party is power for its own sake, but I had some trouble understanding how having power would be enjoyable if no one really wins, and if no one really enjoys life at all. Until I saw the movie, at the part where the memories of Julia are being replaced with O'Brien, and Winston and O'Brien are in the "Golden Country". "You are the Party." I understand, I think, the role of power. I thought it was individual, as in all normal societies. Oceania was not normal, and I failed to see that. In a warped, inverted, altruistic way, the individuals comprising the Party dedicate themselves to the suffering, the torture, the brainwashing, the destruction, of other individuals, as a form of power, and control. It doesn't make logical sense because frankly, the Party is not logical. "Sometimes 2+2=5, sometimes 3, sometimes 4, sometimes all at once." I never really believed in any objective opinion of evil, but after analyzing 1984 for myself, I think that there is no logical or human way to deny that the system set in place by the Party is not inherently evil. Another motto for the Party, something I think should have been included with the other Three, should be:
Power is Collective
Fascist Communism
I made a note on "fascist communism". It's my opinion that all state-systems supposedly obeying communist values are fascist societies under the guise of communism. Why do I say this? For several reasons. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism) states that "fascism" is:
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Now, let's think about Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's USSR, for starters. Italy could hardly be said to have espoused racist tendencies. Yet it was fascist because its authority was centralized under Il Duce, its economy was tightly regulated and controlled, it was fiercely nationalist, and suppression of opposing elements was enforced. Germany was much the same, but with enhanced racist elements. The mere fact racism played a part in the way Nazi Germany operated goes to show that the fabric of Nazi German society could not have been maintained without an enemy; in their case, an enemy deemed inferior, and thus, subversive, to 'great' German society. Spain was roughly on par with Italian fascism, as with Portugal. But as for the USSR?
Q: But wasn't it communist?
A: No. Communism, by definition, is the abolition, or the withering away of a centralized government by localized communes.
Q: But didn't planned economy, propaganda, and the fact they had a "Red" and, later on, a "Soviet" Armed Forces make it, at least, socialist?
A: No. Communism and socialism are two different things. "Soviet" is the Russian equivalent word for "commune", or even "community". Planned economy was never part of Marxist rhetoric. In fact, Marx never laid down the blueprint for a Communist society. Nor did any other Communists of his day.
I rest my case.
The Chestnut Tree Cafe
I am confused by the Chestnut Tree Cafe. The fact that people who were "cured" by the Party go to this place, have clove-flavored gin, and sit around playing chess crying doesn't make much metaphorical sense to me. And in practicality, in the eyes of the Party, I see no purpose for the place at all. And even more mysterious, is the ever ambiguous "on the house" by the waiter. What the hell is going on, what am I missing in this picture?