NationStates

New Totzka wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Kids turning in their parents is no joke. It regularly happens in real life authoritarian regimes. The unwitting confession demonstrates how endemic the party is and how you can't truly trust anyone. The 2+2=5 concept demonstrates the complete dominion over the mind that the regime has, showing totalitarianism at its most basal form. These are not mere satire, these are very deep and poignant themes.

The scene with Parsons and Winston in the ministry of love is pitch black humour. Winston being forced to believe 2+2=5 is dark but its also somewhat absurdist as the state goes to extreme lengths just to prevent any form of intellectual resistance from Winston.

As for the Confessions...

‘You are prepared to commit murder?’
‘Yes.’
‘To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death
of hundreds of innocent people?’
‘Yes.’
‘To betray your country to foreign powers?’
‘Yes.’
‘You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming
drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal
diseases—to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?’
‘Yes.’
‘If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to
throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face—are you prepared to
do that?’
‘Yes.
(page 218)

Come on, its just funny how easily Winston and Julia are duped.

You have an odd sense of humor or really didn't "get" what Orwell was going for, like at all.

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Complaining about the lack of realism in literature is absurd and misses the fun parts of literature.

Valrifell wrote:
You have an odd sense of humor or really didn't "get" what Orwell was going for, like at all.

Next you'll tell me Animal Farm isn't just a fun children's book about some rowdy barnyard animals.

Valrifell wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Complaining about the lack of realism in literature is absurd and misses the fun parts of literature.

Orwell warned us that things we all hate would take over and ruin the world.
Huxley warned us that things we all love would take over and ruin the world.
Both gives us a good insight.

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

I doubt that the book actually describes these regimes accurately. Honestly, I doubt that anti-stalinist leftist are even rational in their opposition to these regime. In fact the capitalist have smarter criticism than any anti-stalinist leftist.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

Orwell quite simply didn't seem to care much about the atrocities that his Spanish Republicans were committing in Spain, so I doubt he had any sort of humanitarian reaction to Stalin's crimes, as much as he complained about complete nonsense like the Stalinists “betraying” Catalonia. The 2 + 2 = 5 thing was completely stupid and no one in the real world actually thinks that way, nor has a totalitarian society ever sought to ban sex. It's just complete nonsense with no actual basis in fact.

Communal concils wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

I doubt that the book actually describes these regimes accurately. Honestly, I doubt that anti-stalinist leftist are even rational in their opposition to these regime. In fact the capitalist have smarter criticism than any anti-stalinist leftist.

It doesn't describe them word for word accurately, and it obviously exagerates and takes liberties. But it predicted sons turning their fathers in, it predicted book burning, it predicted surveillance cameras, it predicted newspeak. All of which were used to varying degrees in authoritarian regimes across the globe.

How are the anti-Stalinist left's criticism's of Stalin irrational? You appear to be implying that any rational leftist would support Stalin.

Valrifell wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:It was a straw man constructed because Orwell was salty @ Stalin. Brave New World seemed to me much more realistic, despite having a more satirical bent.

Complaining about the lack of realism in literature is absurd and misses the fun parts of literature.

It wasn't written to merely be fun, it was written to encapsulate many of Orwell's serious beliefs about the future. It's valid to criticize the book as unrealistic when it was intended as a criticism of political ideologies and was used for such.

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

Orwell quite simply didn't seem to care much about the atrocities that his Spanish Republicans were committing in Spain, so I doubt he had any sort of humanitarian reaction to Stalin's crimes, as much as he complained about complete nonsense like the Stalinists “betraying” Catalonia. The 2 + 2 = 5 thing was completely stupid and no one in the real world actually thinks that way, nor has a totalitarian society ever sought to ban sex. It's just complete nonsense with no actual basis in fact.

I generally question if libertarian socialist are even libertarian. They worship Orwell mindless like a god, and they pretend that all his biases about Catalonia are true. No one seems to focus on "anarchist" labor camps or execution of clergy men. Orwell is fine with it as long as it is not done by the Soviet Union. You will also find is pandering to troskyite. Goldstein is depicted as a rightful leader. If you look at troskyism, you will realize that there is no mass popularity around it.

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Now I'm imagining Stalin, joint in mouth, turning to people leveling criticism against him for the atrocities he's committed, and going "u mad bro?" Yes, Orwell is mad, and for good reason. Personally, I think the themes 1984 explored were not strawmen, but hyperbole. Totalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, and 1984 accurately describes many of the methods used by Nazi Germany and the USSR before they were common knowledge, as well as shedding light on censorship and surveillance practices going on in the UK. I take great issue with writing 1984 off as a straw man. Brave New World is of course much closer to our modern world though, at least in the west.

Orwell quite simply didn't seem to care much about the atrocities that his Spanish Republicans were committing in Spain, so I doubt he had any sort of humanitarian reaction to Stalin's crimes, as much as he complained about complete nonsense like the Stalinists “betraying” Catalonia. The 2 + 2 = 5 thing was completely stupid and no one in the real world actually thinks that way, nor has a totalitarian society ever sought to ban sex. It's just complete nonsense with no actual basis in fact.

Orwell absolutely had an atrocious streak in him, I won't deny that. On Catalonian violence and LGBT people and in his dying days, on his list, he was downright horrible. But damn, did he get it right with 1984. Of course no one actually believes that 2+2=5, the purpose of it is to demonstrate that to appease totalitarian dictators and to genuinely reconcile totalitarian dictators with the ideology they claim to support requires one to believe contradictory things and to have beliefs that directly contravene known facts. Sex is not banned in 1984.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Communal concils wrote:

I doubt that the book actually describes these regimes accurately. Honestly, I doubt that anti-stalinist leftist are even rational in their opposition to these regime. In fact the capitalist have smarter criticism than any anti-stalinist leftist.

It doesn't describe them word for word accurately, and it obviously exagerates and takes liberties. But it predicted sons turning their fathers in, it predicted book burning, it predicted surveillance cameras, it predicted newspeak. All of which were used to varying degrees in authoritarian regimes across the globe.

How are the anti-Stalinist left's criticism's of Stalin irrational? You appear to be implying that any rational leftist would support Stalin.

1.Well, perhaps Authoritarianism is natural. every major civilization suppressed people and stripped " right". He never predicted Newspeak, it existed since the formation of communities .

2. I criticize libertarian socialist for their lack of direct action.They have poor methods, and poor solutions. Every functional society has suppressed some one. Even the most freest nations. I disagree with Stalin on various issues, but I understand the great 5 years and other economic plans as meaningful policies. I doubt you can do any of that with out authoritarianism.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Orwell quite simply didn't seem to care much about the atrocities that his Spanish Republicans were committing in Spain, so I doubt he had any sort of humanitarian reaction to Stalin's crimes, as much as he complained about complete nonsense like the Stalinists “betraying” Catalonia. The 2 + 2 = 5 thing was completely stupid and no one in the real world actually thinks that way, nor has a totalitarian society ever sought to ban sex. It's just complete nonsense with no actual basis in fact.

Orwell absolutely had an atrocious streak in him, I won't deny that. On Catalonian violence and LGBT people and in his dying days, on his list, he was downright horrible. But damn, did he get it right with 1984. Of course no one actually believes that 2+2=5, the purpose of it is to demonstrate that to appease totalitarian dictators and to genuinely reconcile totalitarian dictators with the ideology they claim to support requires one to believe contradictory things and to have beliefs that directly contravene known facts. Sex is not banned in 1984.

1. If he doesn't care for the contradictions in Catalonia( freedom of all and economic equality vs persecution of reactionaries and managers in cooperatives) then he is doing double speak. If he believe in sexual freedoms, then he wouldn't reject homosexuality, a good part of the book was about sexual "Freedoms".

2. He believe in the contradictions I mentioned. Let's not forget that he called for the British government to watch over and violate the freedoms of alleged Stalinist, the special word is alleged .

Communal concils wrote:1.Well, perhaps Authoritarianism is natural. every major civilization suppressed people and stripped " right". He never predicted Newspeak, it existed since the formation of communities .

2. I criticize libertarian socialist for their lack of direct action.They have poor methods, and poor solutions. Every functional society has suppressed some one. Even the most freest nations. I disagree with Stalin on various issues, but I understand the great 5 years and other economic plans as meaningful policies. I doubt you can do any of that with out authoritarianism.

1. Strongly disagree.

2. I've personally seen a lot more libertarian socialist direct action and a lot more authoritarian socialist armchairism. I agree, libertarian socialism seems unstable and unfeasible, but at least it's not directly aiming for authoritarian misery like Marxism-Leninism is. Creating a command economy run by dictators is a very "poor method" for creating a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Economic planning and development may be necessary, but I hardly see how it requires enough authoritarianism so as to get us to not bother with the whole "human rights" thing.

Communal concils wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Orwell absolutely had an atrocious streak in him, I won't deny that. On Catalonian violence and LGBT people and in his dying days, on his list, he was downright horrible. But damn, did he get it right with 1984. Of course no one actually believes that 2+2=5, the purpose of it is to demonstrate that to appease totalitarian dictators and to genuinely reconcile totalitarian dictators with the ideology they claim to support requires one to believe contradictory things and to have beliefs that directly contravene known facts. Sex is not banned in 1984.

1. If he doesn't care for the contradictions in Catalonia( freedom of all and economic equality vs persecution of reactionaries and managers in cooperatives) then he is doing double speak. If he believe in sexual freedoms, then he wouldn't reject homosexuality, a good part of the book was about sexual "Freedoms".

2. He believe in the contradictions I mentioned. Let's not forget that he called for the British government to watch over and violate the freedoms of alleged Stalinist, the special word is alleged .

I agree. That's fucked up. Still, it doesn't make the content of the book any worse. Death of the author and all that.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Communal concils wrote:1.Well, perhaps Authoritarianism is natural. every major civilization suppressed people and stripped " right". He never predicted Newspeak, it existed since the formation of communities .

2. I criticize libertarian socialist for their lack of direct action.They have poor methods, and poor solutions. Every functional society has suppressed some one. Even the most freest nations. I disagree with Stalin on various issues, but I understand the great 5 years and other economic plans as meaningful policies. I doubt you can do any of that with out authoritarianism.

1. Strongly disagree.

2. I've personally seen a lot more libertarian socialist direct action and a lot more authoritarian socialist armchairism. I agree, libertarian socialism seems unstable and unfeasible, but at least it's not directly aiming for authoritarian misery like Marxism-Leninism is. Creating a command economy run by dictators is a very "poor method" for creating a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Economic planning and development may be necessary, but I hardly see how it requires enough authoritarianism so as to get us to not bother with the whole "human rights" thing.

1. well, it's not outrageous.when you look at Latin, it spread with the forceful take over of other nations. The Romans slaughtered and marginalize the Germanic trips for years, they did not face true punishments until 476(the fall of west Rome). When we look at the spread of francophone and anglophone world, we can look at colonialism. nearly all western nations did (or where a result of it). British, Dutch, French, Germans and Italians did that. The united states spread it's ideals through force it, the invasion of Grenada was an example of us intervention in a Marxists state without popular support.

2. Well, the Libertarian socialist have not created a single society true to their ideals. Maknovist Ukraine enslave workers, Catalonia had death squads, and Rojava is accused of Genocide. When you look at Burkina Faso, or Yugoslavia, they were more successful than any anarchist. They still have successful revolutions. like Nepal's revolution in 2009. Marxist-Leninist have achieve socialism, and not all of this "Authoritarian" socialist seek communism.

Communal concils wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:1. Strongly disagree.

2. I've personally seen a lot more libertarian socialist direct action and a lot more authoritarian socialist armchairism. I agree, libertarian socialism seems unstable and unfeasible, but at least it's not directly aiming for authoritarian misery like Marxism-Leninism is. Creating a command economy run by dictators is a very "poor method" for creating a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Economic planning and development may be necessary, but I hardly see how it requires enough authoritarianism so as to get us to not bother with the whole "human rights" thing.

1. well, it's not outrageous.when you look at Latin, it spread with the forceful take over of other nations. The Romans slaughtered and marginalize the Germanic trips for years, they did not face true punishments until 476(the fall of west Rome). When we look at the spread of francophone and anglophone world, we can look at colonialism. nearly all western nations did (or where a result of it). British, Dutch, French, Germans and Italians did that. The united states spread it's ideals through force it, the invasion of Grenada was an example of us intervention in a Marxists state without popular support.

2. Well, the Libertarian socialist have not created a single society true to their ideals. Maknovist Ukraine enslave workers, Catalonia had death squads, and Rojava is accused of Genocide. When you look at Burkina Faso, or Yugoslavia, they were more successful than any anarchist. They still have successful revolutions. like Nepal's revolution in 2009. Marxist-Leninist have achieve socialism, and not all of this "Authoritarian" socialist seek communism.

So Anarchists have Catalonia and Rojava? Leninists on the other hand have Cuba, USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Kampuchea. If that's Socialism achieved, Socialism is something we should avoid.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Communal concils wrote:


1. If he doesn't care for the contradictions in Catalonia( freedom of all and economic equality vs persecution of reactionaries and managers in cooperatives) then he is doing double speak. If he believe in sexual freedoms, then he wouldn't reject homosexuality, a good part of the book was about sexual "Freedoms".

2. He believe in the contradictions I mentioned. Let's not forget that he called for the British government to watch over and violate the freedoms of alleged Stalinist, the special word is alleged .

I agree. That's fucked up. Still, it doesn't make the content of the book any worse. Death of the author and all that.

1.The Narratives purpose.

2. and how people twist it to suit their opinions

3. The simplistic world building

are my main criticism. I will say that is death is indeed tragic, it's not good to have a part of your lungs burst.

While I do find looking back on the book the world of 1984 to be extremely simplistic and dull, I do think it did partially help inspire me to get into and understand politics at a young age and learning about the extreme and radical views of both ends of both left and right wing ideologies. Plus it did help me get into learning a bit about religion in Asia weirdly enough since in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism the book talks about Death-Worship and the "Obliteration of the Self" in Eastasia.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Communal concils wrote:


1. well, it's not outrageous.when you look at Latin, it spread with the forceful take over of other nations. The Romans slaughtered and marginalize the Germanic trips for years, they did not face true punishments until 476(the fall of west Rome). When we look at the spread of francophone and anglophone world, we can look at colonialism. nearly all western nations did (or where a result of it). British, Dutch, French, Germans and Italians did that. The united states spread it's ideals through force it, the invasion of Grenada was an example of us intervention in a Marxists state without popular support.

2. Well, the Libertarian socialist have not created a single society true to their ideals. Maknovist Ukraine enslave workers, Catalonia had death squads, and Rojava is accused of Genocide. When you look at Burkina Faso, or Yugoslavia, they were more successful than any anarchist. They still have successful revolutions. like Nepal's revolution in 2009. Marxist-Leninist have achieve socialism, and not all of this "Authoritarian" socialist seek communism.

So Anarchists have Catalonia and Rojava? Leninists on the other hand have Cuba, USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Kampuchea. If that's Socialism achieved, Socialism is something we should avoid.

well, the anarchist have societies that last a few months or years, and a state that pretends to not be a state.
I will say that state socialism comes in many forms. I find it weird that no on has paid attention to nearly every African state in africa and all the examples in which people did not live a Khrushchevite dictatorship. I think that people are barely told about the countless states were distinct from the soviet union. as for Cuba, it is better than many other countries in Latin America. There is shelter, food and medical supplies for most of the country.It's bad that the globalist market has restricted their ability to get supplies.

Free State Bottleneck wrote:While I do find looking back on the book the world of 1984 to be extremely simplistic and dull, I do think it did partially help inspire me to get into and understand politics at a young age and learning about the extreme and radical views of both ends of both left and right wing ideologies. Plus it did help me get into learning a bit about religion in Asia weirdly enough since in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism the book talks about Death-Worship and the "Obliteration of the Self" in Eastasia.

The book actually, reinforced my Far-Leftist views.

as for the two other states, I think it was lazy to actually say they were all the "Same". though, that portion of Eastasia's ideology seems to mirror imperialist Japan.

If you're looking for dark humour in 1984 itself, you're looking in completely the wrong place. You really need to examine its afterlife as a novel stripped of all historical context, complex interpretation or author's voice and repackaged as a piece of anti socialist propoganda to generations of schoolchildren far more insiduous and effective than anything Orwell could dream up.

Togeria wrote:

Communal concils wrote:

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

I agree, even if they’re not the targets of the worst prosecution, Airstrip 1 is described as pretty shitty. Like you said the fact that in the time of the regime the condition got worse and can be argued worse than before that’s enough for protest.

Further the “middlemen” the position the protagonist is in between the proles and higher up, they’re getting fucked the worse!!! That’s idiotic they’re the main beucratic(I know I messed up the word) spine yet they’re living in the most fear. It’s not a good way to run a regime

True all although if you read [parts of the book again the middle strata is also the most closely monitored because "no one cares what the proles say" as opposed to any party members.

Togeria wrote:

Communal concils wrote:

usually when regimes don't improve conditions or doesn't give enough Bread and circuses, then that regime falls. That's political logic 101. The proles are magically docile. apparently, they are that stupid. That was never the case for Stalin or Mao. They had to give the people lot's of things to makeup for all their errors and disaster. Maybe, the reason Blair did this was because he is representing the troskyite view. The view that the people in the soviet union were magically docile. They just need that "forced slap in the face" to be free.

I agree, even if they’re not the targets of the worst prosecution, Airstrip 1 is described as pretty shitty. Like you said the fact that in the time of the regime the condition got worse and can be argued worse than before that’s enough for protest.

Further the “middlemen” the position the protagonist is in between the proles and higher up, they’re getting fucked the worse!!! That’s idiotic they’re the main beucratic(I know I messed up the word) spine yet they’re living in the most fear. It’s not a good way to run a regime

True all although if you read [parts of the book again the middle strata is also the most closely monitored because "no one cares what the proles say" as opposed to any party members.

Caracasus wrote:If you're looking for dark humour in 1984 itself, you're looking in completely the wrong place. You really need to examine its afterlife as a novel stripped of all historical context, complex interpretation or author's voice and repackaged as a piece of anti socialist propoganda to generations of schoolchildren far more insiduous and effective than anything Orwell could dream up.

That's the biggest irony, especially when it's the conservatives that live in contradictions.