NationStates

One thing I never understood about 1984 is why the Inner Party were so sure that the proles would never rise up and resist against the party. Sure, most of them were dumb, unedicated and drunks, but, if they really wanted to? What would stop them? Not being subjected to NewSpeak, the smarter ones of the lot could have a whole conversation about overthrowing the government, and nobody would know what they're talking about, not the ministry, not the ministry of truth, not the tought police, nobody. If the whole purpose of NewSpeak was to keep outter party members in-check by eliminating speech that could lead to decent. I mean, sure, the thought police could go around inspecting the prole areas, but how would thinkpol know what they're talking about. They could be talking about the weather, they could be talking about what's for dinnerz they could be talking about a violent overthrow of the government, how does thinkpol know? Now, of coarse, thinkpol might be able to speak English (or Spanish, or any other prole language), but that would give them an advantage over the Inner Party, that, plus their weapons, would give them a great chance of an overthrow of the government. I would have loved to have seen a perspective written from a prole's point of view. Another thing is, what happens to Inner Party members who disobey the party Orthodoxy and hate the way that the other Inner Party members rule the world?

Another thing I want to discuss is war. If Eurasia is allied with Oceania are allied and at war against Eastasia, does this mean that Eastasia has no allies? And does this mean that Eurasia have no enemies? If so, wouldn't they ocassionally declare that Oceania has no allies and that Ocenaia has no enemies? I realise, of coarse, that there aren't any wars, so I guess that that's how it works, so... but, still, wouldn't they want consistancy in how the leaders of the three superpowers talk about who they're at with to their citizens? And wouldn't proles remember the past, which contradicts the news they read? And if they don't want the proles to interact with the Outter Party, then why would they imprison them with Minilove together? Doesn't make any sense to me

moving on...

Isn't Minitrue responsible for producing publications for the proles? How do they do this if they speak a different laungauge to the proles? And if the only law enforcement avaliable to the proles is thinkpol, does this mean crime is rampart in these areas? Aren't the proles pissed that the authorities don't do anything about it?

Further, I understand that Newspeak will never be complete because they can't translate old works of fiction. But if that's the case, then why bother trying to translate old works fiction? They've demonstrated that they have no qualms about destroying the past, so, therefore, why wouldn't they want to destory un-newspeakable works of fiction?

Anyways guys, let's discuss the society. You don't have to limit it to what's written here, you can discuss whatever you want about the society

Yeah, I also never understood how society was completely brainwashed in just 40 years or less. If a desire for liberty wouldn't motivate the supposedly stupid proles, living conditions would. I don't care if they aren't that smart, they would understand that Overthrow=More food, more money, more sexual freedom, and less risk of getting sent off to war. No one would go along with this. It's a good read, but it's sorta BS.

Lamenia wrote:Yeah, I also never understood how society was completely brainwashed in just 40 years or less. If a desire for liberty wouldn't motivate the supposedly stupid proles, living conditions would. I don't care if they aren't that smart, they would understand that Overthrow=More food, more money, more sexual freedom, and less risk of getting sent off to war. No one would go along with this. It's a good read, but it's sorta BS.

You can brainwash people in 40 years. Just look at China and North Korea. I think the best way to do it would be seperating kids from their parents and start the indoctronation from birth whilst purging those who would resist. Alternately, you can create an artificial generation gap and seperate parents and brainwash their children. I reacon it could be done. And the novel, at least to me, suggested that this is what they did to Winston Smith when seperating him from his mother and sister, so taht he couldn't grow up with anyone who's ever known any better, but the thing is, they make no effort to brainwash the proles. That's the part that I don't get

I think a totalitarian society like 1984 would never exist, sine this will lead to a massive uprising even the government or the bureaucracy won't contain.

Australian rePublic wrote:they make no effort to brainwash the proles. That's the part that I don't get

All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

The New California Republic wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:they make no effort to brainwash the proles. That's the part that I don't get

All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

Firstly, the Outter Party were imprisoned with the proles. Remember when Winston smith was imprisoned with that prole who thiugh she was his mother?
Secondly, how does thinkpol keep tabs on proles, when they can't control?

Australian rePublic wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

Firstly, the Outter Party were imprisoned with the proles. Remember when Winston smith was imprisoned with that prole who thiugh she was his mother?

It's possible that "prole" was planted there by O'Brien. The KGB and Stasi used a similar trick, where they placed another "prisoner" with the actual prisoner, to see what information they might spill in their presence.

Australian rePublic wrote:Secondly, how does thinkpol keep tabs on proles, when they can't control?

What?

Imperial Joseon wrote:I think a totalitarian society like 1984 would never exist, sine this will lead to a massive uprising even the government or the bureaucracy won't contain.

East Germany, North Korea, Eritrea...

What annoys me the most is how conspiracy theorists and far-right activists use "1984" to demonise their opponents, and then claim "freedom of speech". It is not only annoying, but dangerous, as we have seen with the Christchurch Shootings.

Heloin wrote:

Imperial Joseon wrote:I think a totalitarian society like 1984 would never exist, sine this will lead to a massive uprising even the government or the bureaucracy won't contain.

East Germany, North Korea, Eritrea...

I thought Soviet Union during the Stalin era was the closest to it, despite the title.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Lamenia wrote:Yeah, I also never understood how society was completely brainwashed in just 40 years or less. If a desire for liberty wouldn't motivate the supposedly stupid proles, living conditions would. I don't care if they aren't that smart, they would understand that Overthrow=More food, more money, more sexual freedom, and less risk of getting sent off to war. No one would go along with this. It's a good read, but it's sorta BS.

You can brainwash people in 40 years. Just look at China and North Korea. I think the best way to do it would be seperating kids from their parents and start the indoctronation from birth whilst purging those who would resist. Alternately, you can create an artificial generation gap and seperate parents and brainwash their children. I reacon it could be done. And the novel, at least to me, suggested that this is what they did to Winston Smith when seperating him from his mother and sister, so taht he couldn't grow up with anyone who's ever known any better, but the thing is, they make no effort to brainwash the proles. That's the part that I don't get

Why bother brainwashing the proles. The more people the inner party try to control the more likely a rebellion will happen. If you give people the illusion that they are "free" then they probably won't feel a need to rebel against the establishment.

Earthbound Immortal Squad wrote:Why bother brainwashing the proles. The more people the inner party try to control the more likely a rebellion will happen. If you give people the illusion that they are "free" then they probably won't feel a need to rebel against the establishment.

Pretty much, hence what I said earlier about being "kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party."

Imperial Joseon wrote:

Heloin wrote:East Germany, North Korea, Eritrea...

I thought Soviet Union during the Stalin era was the closest to it, despite the title.

No. I just gave you the three countries which one was and for two still are exactly like it.

Heloin wrote:

Imperial Joseon wrote:
I thought Soviet Union during the Stalin era was the closest to it, despite the title.

No. I just gave you the three countries which one was and for two still are exactly like it.

Where exactly is Eritrea...

Imperial Joseon wrote:

Heloin wrote:No. I just gave you the three countries which one was and for two still are exactly like it.

Where exactly is Eritrea...

Look it up yourself, we aren't your personal search engine.

Australian rePublic wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

Firstly, the Outter Party were imprisoned with the proles. Remember when Winston smith was imprisoned with that prole who thiugh she was his mother?
Secondly, how does thinkpol keep tabs on proles, when they can't control?

They would likely survey them in the streets (they already do in the book) and make sure those that are suspicious are dealt with, either through Room 101 or execution. They also have at the very least infiltrated Goldstein's resistance movement to a point, with the whole existence of Goldstein and the Brotherhood probably being a fabrication. Add that onto the lack of education (their only knowledge of politics seems to be a mild sense of patriotism, in the eyes of Winston), the appaling conditions and a lack of knowledge of the world beyond their workplace and neighbourhood beyond knowing of its existence, and any chance of a revolution wouldbe dealt with immediately.
Besides, Oceania probably is just Great Britain.

Crimethink is rife within this thread; the reason the Proles won't rebel is because they love Big Brother, and they wouldn't be able to run a society without his divine rule. Besides, Goldstein probably wouldn't run a government, and would be seen like Eastasia is by us duckspeakers, pure evil!

Imperial Joseon wrote:I think a totalitarian society like 1984 would never exist, sine this will lead to a massive uprising even the government or the bureaucracy won't contain.

It doesn't have to exist when China and North Korea, especially the former, have a real-life model that is similar in concept and far more effective in practice.

The New California Republic wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:they make no effort to brainwash the proles. That's the part that I don't get

All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

But east Germany eventually fell, so... Also, I said that the proles would eventually realize that societal reorganization would benefit them, even if in a superficial way. They'd revolt eventually, and as my friend oversimplified puts it: "once that civil liberties train gets rolling, you best buckle up". Something like that.

The New California Republic wrote:

Imperial Joseon wrote:
Where exactly is Eritrea...

Look it up yourself, we aren't your personal search engine.

I thought it was a fake nation, but it really exists. By the way, I wasn't asking you, so if you can step aside, that'd be great.

Lamenia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:All capacity for truly independent thought in the proles has vanished due to conditioning. They are kept docile by base pleasures and meaningless entertainment created by the Party. On the very rare occasion that any prole does show signs of independent thought then they are simply killed. Only Party members are subject to being brought to the Ministry of Love for Thoughtcrime, as using those techniques against proles would be pointless, as they don't have the capacity for the re-establishing of doublethink to resolve the contradictions they perceive.

An excellent historical example is East Germany. The members of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED, were arguably under far greater scrutiny by the Stasi than the rest of society (proles). The smallest unit of organisation in the SED, the party group, usually about a dozen or so members, had one designated person who would submit regular reports to the Stasi on the activities of the group as a whole, as well as the individual members. Party members also had to attend regular ideology sessions. During the mass demonstrations in 1989, the regional Party members (which you could call the "Outer Party") started countermanding the orders of the Central Committee (the "Inner Party"). Once that happened, the SED was finished. That's why the Party in 1984 goes to such extreme lengths to control the Outer Party; as they realise, just as actually happened in East Germany after 1984 was published, that the greatest threat to Party power is the Outer Party rebelling against the Inner Party.

To keep the comparison going, the head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, renumbered the rooms in the Stasi HQ so that his office would be room number 101. Mielke clearly read 1984 at some point...

But east Germany eventually fell, so... Also, I said that the proles would eventually realize that societal reorganization would benefit them, even if in a superficial way. They'd revolt eventually, and as my friend oversimplified puts it: "once that civil liberties train gets rolling, you best buckle up". Something like that.

The issue with this idea is that the proles in 1984 didn't know of a better life, whilst citizens in East Germany saw their western counterparts thrive. Even presuming the world situation of 1984 as said by Oceania is correct, the borders between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are split off by border territories, and most of that is likely in pure ruins.
I'd say the more likely centre of revolt is in these disputed territories; many slave revolts have occurred, and would require a global effort to contain. Who knows, maybe this is why the allegiences switch so often.

Imperial Joseon wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Look it up yourself, we aren't your personal search engine.

I thought it was a fake nation, but it really exists. By the way, I wasn't asking you, so if you can step aside, that'd be great.

Again you are quite capable of looking these things up yourself without asking others to do it for you.

Imperial Joseon wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Look it up yourself, we aren't your personal search engine.

I thought it was a fake nation, but it really exists. By the way, I wasn't asking you, so if you can step aside, that'd be great.

Eritrea is the country that broke away from Ethiopia and took the costline with them. Ethiopia was thriving till that point, so it makes you wonder to what extent landlockedness has fucked them over...

The Sapmi wrote:

Lamenia wrote:But east Germany eventually fell, so... Also, I said that the proles would eventually realize that societal reorganization would benefit them, even if in a superficial way. They'd revolt eventually, and as my friend oversimplified puts it: "once that civil liberties train gets rolling, you best buckle up". Something like that.

The issue with this idea is that the proles in 1984 didn't know of a better life, whilst citizens in East Germany saw their western counterparts thrive. Even presuming the world situation of 1984 as said by Oceania is correct, the borders between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are split off by border territories, and most of that is likely in pure ruins.
I'd say the more likely centre of revolt is in these disputed territories; many slave revolts have occurred, and would require a global effort to contain. Who knows, maybe this is why the allegiences switch so often.

But the proles of the older generation would know a better life. They'd pass such stories on to their kids, until, after enough generations, there were rumours of a better life somewhere out there. Not to mention the proles sho work for party members directly, and directly see what luxuries they get.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Imperial Joseon wrote:
I thought it was a fake nation, but it really exists. By the way, I wasn't asking you, so if you can step aside, that'd be great.

Eritrea is the country that broke away from Ethiopia and took the costline with them. Ethiopia was thriving till that point, so it makes you wonder to what extent landlockedness has fucked them over...

I mean, I would have looked it up, but I was asking because I thought it was some kind of a fictional nation. I didn't know there was a country named it.