Could "1984" sustain at equilibrium as a dominant politics

[Yagon]

Without spoiling the ending, even a Michael Bay adaption of 1984 would have a hard time reasoning that Winston wins and Big Brother is overthrown by his careful machinations, courage, flaming costumes, and a bow and arrow (apparently this is how the younger generation overthrows Dystopias).

Big Brother is not overthrown, and if anything, the novel is a never-ending curbstomp of power by Big Brother over Winston.

But how long could running things that way last?

Would you suppress technology? What are the conflicts among its elites?

While giving perfunctory fake excitement to the "increase" in the chocolate rations, they mention (unrelated of course) that one of them is out of razors ("For some reason") and Winston can't hook him up because he's down to his last one.

So if you're making your worker class functional with imaginary chocolate ration increases and they can't shave, you aren't sunk yet. You just rule over hairy people with no chocolate. But if the reason you're short on those things is that your system isn't producing enough for promised rations and needed items, how does that look 5 years out? 10?

Civilizations have to be able to adapt to survive. There are resource constraints. Could you freeze your civilizations technology at a spot within the planet's ecolological carrying capacity but before it necessarily causes unanticipated massive social change? Could you stop human beings from being engineers (who were born to our species long before a "school" or "degree" existed as concept)? Would your dissenters and enemies prove over time as adaptive as humans can be?

I think no. 1984 could run for a bit, but things would change. Humans change. The Proles would find their strength. And then they'd fuck it all up some new way.

What's your opinion? Could 1984 IngSoc run for thousand years?

I

[Risottia]

The ancient polis model lasted for centuries. The Roman Empire lasted for one millennium and a half. The Chinese Empire lasted two millennia and a half. And they didn't fall because of slaves/proles/villagers revolting, they fell because of external factors.
I don't see why IngSoc wouldn't last even more, as its self-conservation strategies are much more efficient and pervasive, and there are no external factors (Oceania, Eurasia and Easrasia exist in a perpetually-balanced phony war.

[Irona]

Without spoiling the ending, even a Michael Bay adaption of 1984 would have a hard time reasoning that Winston wins and Big Brother is overthrown by his careful machinations, courage, flaming costumes, and a bow and arrow (apparently this is how the younger generation overthrows Dystopias).

Big Brother is not overthrown, and if anything, the novel is a never-ending curbstomp of power by Big Brother over Winston.

But how long could running things that way last?

Would you suppress technology? What are the conflicts among its elites?

While giving perfunctory fake excitement to the "increase" in the chocolate rations, they mention (unrelated of course) that one of them is out of razors ("For some reason") and Winston can't hook him up because he's down to his last one.

So if you're making your worker class functional with imaginary chocolate ration increases and they can't shave, you aren't sunk yet. You just rule over hairy people with no chocolate. But if the reason you're short on those things is that your system isn't producing enough for promised rations and needed items, how does that look 5 years out? 10?

Civilizations have to be able to adapt to survive. There are resource constraints. Could you freeze your civilizations technology at a spot within the planet's ecolological carrying capacity but before it necessarily causes unanticipated massive social change? Could you stop human beings from being engineers (who were born to our species long before a "school" or "degree" existed as concept)? Would your dissenters and enemies prove over time as adaptive as humans can be?

I think no. 1984 could run for a bit, but things would change. Humans change. The Proles would find their strength. And then they'd fuck it all up some new way.

What's your opinion? Could 1984 IngSoc run for thousand years?

I

1984 isn’t really meant as a realistic view of the world. Ignoring that, I think Winston is right to look to the Proles. Maybe they aren’t rising up yet, but when things get horrific enough they will. Part of the books philosophy is that the working class need to be led in revolution by the middle class. But even accepting that as ‘part of the 1984 world’ people can rise up without political
cohesion just out of pure misery and anger. Further the end of the book has Oceania taking all of Africa in an unprecedented success. That’s sure to upset the worlds balance, unless it’s just propaganda of course.

[Sovaal]

The government of Big borther is purposefully wasteful of resources, so as to keep society from advance of beyond their control. Hence the forever war between the three powers. Honestly they’re probably likely to hit a point of no return where they just can support themselves any longer and they collapse.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Nah. Revolutions are always a thing.

[Irona]

The government of Big borther is purposefully wasteful of resources, so as to keep society from advance of beyond their control. Hence the forever war between the three powers. Honestly they’re probably likely to hit a point of no return where they just can support themselves any longer and they collapse.

I don’t think their purposefully wasteful just to prevent society from advancing beyond their control, but to prevent communism which is the whole purpose of their society.

[Goverwal]

If you read the appendix, it becomes evident that the regime was eventually toppled. After how long, though, is an entirely different question I believe that, if all side manged to keep the military balance even, then the world could continue forever in that state. However, i is likely that the conquest of Africa was the beginning of the end for that society, since it would be impossible to erase memories of such strong and unique feelings of joy and excitement as must have occurred on that day, which would have far surpassed the expected level of enthusiasm for the regime at any other time.

[Sovaal]

The government of Big borther is purposefully wasteful of resources, so as to keep society from advance of beyond their control. Hence the forever war between the three powers. Honestly they’re probably likely to hit a point of no return where they just can support themselves any longer and they collapse.

I don’t think their purposefully wasteful just to prevent society from advancing beyond their control, but to prevent communism which is the whole purpose of their society.

What? Big Brother is beyond fascism or communism or any other ‘ism’. Orwell wrote them as a general totalitarian government, with no real ideology attached.

[Baltenstein]

1984 isn’t really meant as a realistic view of the world. Ignoring that, I think Winston is right to look to the Proles. Maybe they aren’t rising up yet, but when things get horrific enough they will. Part of the books philosophy is that the working class need to be led in revolution by the middle class. But even accepting that as ‘part of the 1984 world’ people can rise up without political
cohesion just out of pure misery and anger.

The Proles are actually neither (that) miserable, nor particularly angry, but on the whole pretty docile, judging by what we see from them. It's the Outer Party members who live the most fucked-up existence in Oceania.

Further the end of the book has Oceania taking all of Africa in an unprecedented success. That’s sure to upset the worlds balance, unless it’s just propaganda of course.

I'm pretty sure that's just meant to be nonsense.

[Sovaal]

1984 isn’t really meant as a realistic view of the world. Ignoring that, I think Winston is right to look to the Proles. Maybe they aren’t rising up yet, but when things get horrific enough they will. Part of the books philosophy is that the working class need to be led in revolution by the middle class. But even accepting that as ‘part of the 1984 world’ people can rise up without political
cohesion just out of pure misery and anger.

The Proles are actually neither (that) miserable, nor particularly angry, but on the whole pretty docile, judging by what we see from them. It's the Outer Party members who live the most fucked-up existence in Oceania.

Further the end of the book has Oceania taking all of Africa in an unprecedented success. That’s sure to upset the worlds balance, unless it’s just propaganda of course.

I'm pretty sure that's just meant to be nonsense.

Honestly I’m of the idea that Big Brother is little more then a North Korean style country barely in control of the British Ilses, cut off from the rest of the world as a little hermit kingdom.

[Lord Dominator]

I'm of the idea, that if the world is as the book describes, Oceania could keep going indefinitely, sans hitting such barriers as peak oil/iron/etc

[Benuty]

Without spoiling the ending, even a Michael Bay adaption of 1984 would have a hard time reasoning that Winston wins and Big Brother is overthrown by his careful machinations, courage, flaming costumes, and a bow and arrow (apparently this is how the younger generation overthrows Dystopias).

Big Brother is not overthrown, and if anything, the novel is a never-ending curbstomp of power by Big Brother over Winston.

But how long could running things that way last?

Would you suppress technology? What are the conflicts among its elites?

While giving perfunctory fake excitement to the "increase" in the chocolate rations, they mention (unrelated of course) that one of them is out of razors ("For some reason") and Winston can't hook him up because he's down to his last one.

So if you're making your worker class functional with imaginary chocolate ration increases and they can't shave, you aren't sunk yet. You just rule over hairy people with no chocolate. But if the reason you're short on those things is that your system isn't producing enough for promised rations and needed items, how does that look 5 years out? 10?

Civilizations have to be able to adapt to survive. There are resource constraints. Could you freeze your civilizations technology at a spot within the planet's ecolological carrying capacity but before it necessarily causes unanticipated massive social change? Could you stop human beings from being engineers (who were born to our species long before a "school" or "degree" existed as concept)? Would your dissenters and enemies prove over time as adaptive as humans can be?

I think no. 1984 could run for a bit, but things would change. Humans change. The Proles would find their strength. And then they'd fuck it all up some new way.

What's your opinion? Could 1984 IngSoc run for thousand years?

I

1984 isn’t really meant as a realistic view of the world. Ignoring that, I think Winston is right to look to the Proles. Maybe they aren’t rising up yet, but when things get horrific enough they will. Part of the book's philosophy is that the working class need to be led in a revolution by the middle class. But even accepting that as ‘part of the 1984 world’ people can rise up without political
cohesion just out of pure misery and anger. Further, the end of the book has Oceania taking all of Africa in an unprecedented success. That’s sure to upset the worlds balance unless it’s just propaganda of course.

It probably is propaganda, and on that note, the inner party has to manufacture its own enemies with thought crime conspiracies like Winston, and company just for the sake of both hate week, and to prove their system works. So it could last a very long time since no one ever seems to leave airstrip one at least outside of the inner party members maybe.

[Benuty]

1984 isn’t really meant as a realistic view of the world. Ignoring that, I think Winston is right to look to the Proles. Maybe they aren’t rising up yet, but when things get horrific enough they will. Part of the books philosophy is that the working class need to be led in revolution by the middle class. But even accepting that as ‘part of the 1984 world’ people can rise up without political
cohesion just out of pure misery and anger.

The Proles are actually neither (that) miserable, nor particularly angry, but on the whole pretty docile, judging by what we see from them. It's the Outer Party members who live the most fucked-up existence in Oceania.

Further the end of the book has Oceania taking all of Africa in an unprecedented success. That’s sure to upset the worlds balance, unless it’s just propaganda of course.

I'm pretty sure that's just meant to be nonsense.

Hell, the proles are kept comfortable, and even allowed things no outer party members are allowed access to which I suppose makes sense if you want your cheap labor source placid.

[Petrolheadia]

The real-life GDR employed a similar system of widespread informators, the STASI (even up to 25% of the population, but no telescreens), and it survived over 40 years and collapsed due to external revolutionary movements.

Without such movements, and with the Thought Police... well, it's going to last long.

[Allanea]

Big Brother is not overthrown, and if anything, the novel is a never-ending curbstomp of power by Big Brother over Winston.

Big Brother is overthrown, however.

The novel's 'Appendix' is set after the fall of Big Brother's regime.

[Sovaal]

The real-life GDR employed a similar system of widespread informators, the STASI (even up to 25% of the population, but no telescreens), and it survived over 40 years and collapsed due to external revolutionary movements.

Without such movements, and with the Thought Police... well, it's going to last long.

Might have also helped East Germany was that it was basically a puppet state.

[Lord Dominator]

Big Brother is not overthrown, and if anything, the novel is a never-ending curbstomp of power by Big Brother over Winston.

Big Brother is overthrown, however.

The novel's 'Appendix' is set after the fall of Big Brother's regime.

So we assume anyways

[Irona]

I don’t think their purposefully wasteful just to prevent society from advancing beyond their control, but to prevent communism which is the whole purpose of their society.

What? Big Brother is beyond fascism or communism or any other ‘ism’. Orwell wrote them as a general totalitarian government, with no real ideology attached.

It’s an attack on Totalitarianism, and Stalinism, but you have to read it with the understanding that Orwell was openly an anti-Soviet Socialist.

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism passages outline quite explicitly that INGSOC exists to prevent human advancement to a point where suffering no longer exists. The very name INGSOC is doublethink: Goldstein say’s “Oligarchical Collectivism rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it does so in the name of Socialism"

[Petrolheadia]

Nah. Revolutions are always a thing.

IIRC you need some 1-50+% of people supporting you to win in a revolution, depnding on how well-armed you are (for the typically-armed revolution, it's around 4-5%).

The Oceanians don't have guns or stuff, so you'd need to rally over 10% of the population - but how the hell, given the Thought Police, telescreens, unpersoning, etc.?

[Allanea]

Yes, it's not explicitly so stated, but clearly Oceania's regime is referred to as the past tense:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050.

Note the past tense. Clearly, in-universe, Oceania no longer uses 'Newspeak', and Oldspeak remains as standard English.

[Wysten]

If you want to be optimistic about it, They could fall apart due to resources starting to become rare and we have a repeat of Fallout now with more Enclave but that is the optimistic look to it.

[Granluras]

Taking into consideration what everyone else has said about the philosophy and world of Nineteen Eighty-Four and realistic human behavior, psychology, et cetera I’m inclined to make the educated statement that there’s really no long-term chance that the world in that story could sustain itself. Even with the cunning, multi-layered, oppression and anti-individuality espoused in the novel I believe that human spirit always prevails.
Bear with me for a moment when I say this: In 1984 the individual and individual willpower and spirit of the human has been whistled away and turned to nothing. It has been mashed together, remade, and turned into collectivality, or basically everyone shares a single, weak spirit. But so long as that spirit is human it could revolt, and being in every human that could sweep up everyone to rebel against the status quo.
That’s what I believe, hopefully it makes sense :c

[Internationalist Bastard]

A very long time
Technology makes fighting a revolution significantly more difficult in multiple ways
More surveillance means it’s harder to hide
More advanced weapons means that even in America, where people demand the right to high powered rifles, they’d be outgunned
An already difficult thing is made more difficult as the technology the government has increases

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

I read 1984 years ago, and it still freaks me out to this day.
Now, do I think that Ingsoc could sustain itself in the current status? I don't really know.
Consider that the Proles could rise up with a charismatic leader. Couldn't the resultant state create another repressive regime?
On top of that, the state could just kill them.
Also consider the people of the "conquered territories". They could just say, "We are done with this crap" and be done with it...
So many possibilities...

[Ostroeuropa]

Total memetic stasis seems unlikely. Given advances in our understanding of human psychology and sociology it may be possible.