1984 Discussion thread

[JayTeeMe]

Originally Posted by Paul D

I got a question for you all. How do you feel that George Orwell was a democratic socialist?

I feel like it's in no way a good starting point for discussion of the book?

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

I feel like it's in no way a good starting point for discussion of the book?

It is valid when discussing the book. His world views are what inspired him to write. He most likely would have not written either 1984 or Animal Farm without having an interest in socialism.

[tomdemaine]

Originally Posted by General Tsao

can we talk about this book yet i finished it last night

Yeah sorry all, I've been crap with this thread. I think we should just open it to bookwide discussion now and start again. If anyone still doesn't want to be spoiled stay out of the thread until you finish.

[tomdemaine]

Originally Posted by Paul D

I got a question for you all. How do you feel that George Orwell was a democratic socialist?

I feel fine. I too was a democratic socialist at one point.

[JayTeeMe]

Here's a question and something I've always wondered. Why does O'Brien give Winston The Book and pretend to be part of the Brotherhood? Couldn't he just have arrested them right away?

[tomdemaine]

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

Here's a question and something I've always wondered. Why does O'Brien give Winston The Book and pretend to be part of the Brotherhood? Couldn't he just have arrested them right away?

I think the idea is that to perfect double think you have to know "the truth" and reject it and know you're rejecting it but reject that too. The party doesn't want martyrs and the conversion has to be a full one in the light of all the knowledge. They need to make you love big brother even though you know his true nature.

[swinginglory]

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

Ok first discussion question

Winston writing a diary is a conspicuous defiance of the Party. If you are encased in a system with no hope of escape is it better to knuckle down, play by the rules and try to survive as long as possible or is it better to rebel even in a small way and even if that will dramatically worsen your life personally?

Is it hypocritical to "thrive" in a system you despise?

Yes. There is a passage in McCullough's 'John Adams' that answers this eloquently.

On September 11, 1776 John Adams and Franklin meet secretly with Adm. Lord Richard Howe on Staten Island in an effort to end the conflict. As the negotiations break down and Adams and Franklin leave, Howe already has an arrest warrant in hand from the King to take Franklin, Adams and the other signers of the declaration back to the Tower of London for hanging for treason.

It takes a special set of balls and an enormous belief in individual liberty to take the risks those guys (mostly very wealthy) took.

Life without liberty is hardly worth muddling through.

[General Tsao]

Originally Posted by Paul D

I got a question for you all. How do you feel that George Orwell was a democratic socialist?

To me this is one of the aspects which make 1984 and Animal Farm so important. The fact that Orwell remained a collectivist, not understanding that both those books outlined the likely end game of his ideology, and were not just examples of collectivism gone awry. This is the flaw of all collectivists and socialists, that they think these books demonstrate what can go wrong and not what will go wrong.

[JayTeeMe]

One shocking thing about this world is that nobody is better off. Even the Inner Party members are poorer than pre-revolution

[tomdemaine]

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

One shocking thing about this world is that nobody is better off. Even the Inner Party members are poorer than pre-revolution

Yeah, it's another great irony that the (what I consider) socialistic idea that differences in wealth matters more than absolute wealth is inverted and magnified in the world of 1984. Having working lifts or being able to mute your telescreen for half an hour is an enormous boon. That the inner party purposely destroy their own wealth just so that they can destroy more of the wealth of others.

[All-In Flynn]

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

Yeah, it's another great irony that the (what I consider) socialistic idea that differences in wealth matters more than absolute wealth is inverted and magnified in the world of 1984. Having working lifts or being able to mute your telescreen for half an hour is an enormous boon. That the inner party purposely destroy their own wealth just so that they can destroy more of the wealth of others.

It seems to me that the intent is to show as perfect a perversion as possible of socialistic ideals.

[valenzuela]

Originally Posted by Paul D

I got a question for you all. How do you feel that George Orwell was a democratic socialist?

Dammit, I opened the thread to make this post but somebody wrote it before me.

[Ashington]

Originally Posted by Paul D

I got a question for you all. How do you feel that George Orwell was a democratic socialist?

I don't know how much of this to read into the story. In high school and college I was cautioned by every English teacher I had not to read too much of the author's personal life into the stories he/she writes, because they often have nothing to do with each other. I would *prefer* to hear or read commentary by the author himself before even attempting to find a parallel.

That said, assuming no such clarification was ever given by Orwell...

I would say that he likely saw a distinct difference between Goldstein's idea of Socialism and the party's idea of Socialism and that he does not agree with those (like General itt) who think that all socialism is the same, all is bad and all necessarily leads to totalitarianism.

Basically he views The Party through the eyes of Goldstein (ie it morphed into social-imperialism under Big Brother's watch).

[JayTeeMe]

When do we find out anything about Goldstein's idea of socialism?

[brad2002tj]

You mean the party's idea of what Goldstein's idea of socialism would be?