Nineteen Eighty Four is not science fiction

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, but I’m digging deeper.

I’ve heard many people during that time period say they were required to read it.

They were required because it was a soft disclosure of the future, is my hypothesis.

I’m sure Orwell wasn’t commissioned to write it as I previously hypothesized. However, TPTB certainly liked it to require kids to read it.

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

Here we go again. Another thread about 1984 with posts from people who have never read it.

1984 was about the individual in a totalitarian society. Big Brother and the Party were a synthesis of what had been happening in Europe since the early 20s. Big Brother's face was from Mussolini''s Italy, the memory hole from Stalin's Russia and so on.

The Party the majority of people, the Proles, alone to their beer and entertainment, to get up and work and consume and slowly die. Proles and animals are free. That was a criticism of capitalism.

Pretty much everyone since Plato has known language is power. Language is organic, even when tightly prescribed like French and Spanish. It grows with usage, adapts to the mainstream, and leaves linguistic buggy whip manufacturers behind. A dictionary reflecting usage is not Orwellian. Orwell was talking about the conscious manipulation of language for political advantage. Every campaign slogan, every catchphrase is Orwellian. The phrase "alternative facts" is Orwellian.

He was not writing about the future. 1984 is a fable about what could happen in the world in 1949 if it did not learn from the previous 13 years, just as Animal Farm was a fable about the abuse of socialism.

Although it is somewhat nuanced in 1984, Orwell himself wrote "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. " (Why I Write, 1946). Orwell was a socialist.

Let's make that clear - Orwell was a socialist.

Let's go one step further. "Democratic socialist" means he believed in a planned socialised economy and workers having a say in the running of business. Whether you like it or not, that's where he stood.

He wasn't alone in that position. Ernest Bevin, the British foreign minister from May 1945, was a democratic socialist. He was one of the main proponents of keeping Stalin at arm's length after the war, even when some in the US State Department wanted to include the USSR in the Marshall Plan. He was one of the main proponents of NATO.

It's also interesting to see a few people talking about Brave New World now. Some of the centre and left have been using Brave New World since the 1970s to describe life in the West. It's linked to Chomsky's idea of manufacturing consent (1988). Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) saw the world becoming closer to Huxley's vision than Orwell's story. Funny how ideas seem to come (and go) here in waves. It's like people are getting them from somewhere else...

Oh, and Room 101 was a room at the BBC, but Orwell was being satirical (again). It was a commitee room where he would be so bored he thought he would lose the will to live.

originally posted by: Tulpa

I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the BBC sometimes just out of interest to see how they operate these days.
Ministry of Truth.

Nah.

Meetings are a combination of dynamic youngish people with numbers for blood, accountants, the talent and a diminishing band of Graham Chapman types. For every Jeremy Hardy, there's a Nick Robinson. For every Frankie Boyle, there's a Laura Kuensberg. For every News Quiz there's a Mrs Brown's Boys.

Production - radio, television and online - is mainly offsite by independent producers. Publications are franchised.

Dull as bleeding dishwater, believe me. Even the recordings of the funniest (heavily edited) comedies.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Orwell was a socialist..

The problem with using blanket definitions - like Socialist, Left, Right, etc. to describe people is its so vague. Somebody would have to talk for an hour or more to see where they stand on specific matters. You can have a combination of positions from different 'ideologies'. I would guess he was for a free market? Not sure how we could call that Socialism.

Funny how ideas seem to come (and go) here in waves.

Perhaps the reason for this is that people are just discovering these things.

If you're old enough it may have been mandatory reading in school, but not sure for younger generations.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, but I’m digging deeper.

I’ve heard many people during that time period say they were required to read it.

They were required because it was a soft disclosure of the future, is my hypothesis.

I’m sure Orwell wasn’t commissioned to write it as I previously hypothesized. However, TPTB certainly liked it to require kids to read it.

I don't know about that one.

I know people are reluctant to see a grand conspiracy that can span so many generations and decades of time, perhaps even centuries or longer but I am convinced of it. The Fascists were here well before Orwell and their lineage what we see today.

What the Past Tells About the Future

The future has long been a popular subject. Visit any library and you will probably find a shelfful of books about it. A closer look will reveal that many of these books were written 60, or even 70, years ago. For example, George Orwell’s satirical novel 1984, published in 1949, painted the picture of a dehumanized society under totalitarian rule. And in 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring drew worldwide attention to the dangers of environmental pollution due to indiscriminate use of chemicals. Since then, the best-seller list has been crowded with books on the subject.

But what have all the predictions and warnings accomplished? Have they aroused the public and the authorities to take action to curb the problems and to safeguard the future? The author of the best-seller The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, who has been writing and broadcasting on environmental issues since the 1960’s, had this to say: “In some senses, we’ve come a long way. We have the National Environmental Policy Act, we have environmental impact statements, and so on. But it’s nowhere near enough progress to keep up with the rate at which we’re tearing things apart . . . I’ve wasted a lot of breath, I guess.” He summarized his hopes for the future this way: “If completely optimistic is 10, and completely pessimistic is one, I would put it at about one point two.” Thus, all the books, reports, studies and conferences in the last several decades have done little to change most people’s thinking and attitude as to the future.

Why Warnings Go Unheeded

Why have world conditions continued to deteriorate in spite of all that the experts are telling us? Could it be that most people today are unconcerned about their future? Strange as it may seem, that is just what researchers have found​—most people’s real concern is about today rather than the future.

For example, an article in Psychology Today, entitled “The Future Can Fend for Itself,” gives the results of a nationwide survey and reports: “To an unhealthy degree perhaps, [people’s] thoughts were dominated by the present. Economic issues crowded out all other concerns​—even crime, religion, peace in the world.” The survey found, for instance, that when people were asked what they wanted most in life, by a ratio of five to one they tended to mention a better living standard for themselves more often than a better future for their children.

Not to be overlooked is the effect of the widespread practice of information manipulation, or even distortion, by governments, businesses, industries, and so forth. It is not uncommon, for example, for the harmful effects of a product such as asbestos, or a project such as nuclear power plants, to be suppressed. Or, clever advertising campaigns, even scare tactics, may be employed to delude the public into believing untruths or ignoring well-founded warnings. Even if the truth comes out in the end, the net effect is that the public turns skeptical and cynical about the experts, and becomes ever more unwilling to make any changes or sacrifices in the name of the future.

Thus, by and large, people’s interests and concerns appear to be focused on the here and now, and on themselves. Of course, they think about the future, but most people feel that there is little that they can do about it. What matters to them is the day-to-day affair of living and what they can get out of it now. The future will have to take care of itself, they feel.

Results of Inaction

This state of mind played an important role in shaping the course of events leading up to the critical world conditions we see today. Many of the serious threats to a better future​—nuclear war, pollution, crime and violence, to name just a few—​are the results of decades of warnings ignored or facts concealed. Consider, briefly, a few examples.

The threat of nuclear war and the dangers of the international arms race have long been recognized. Protests and warnings have been sounding forth for many years. In 1964, nearly 60 years ago, two eminent American scientists who served as presidential advisers pointed out the folly of the arms race this way: “Both sides in the arms race are thus confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. . . . The clearly predictable course of the arms race is a steady open spiral downward into oblivion.” In other words, the more the nations arm themselves, the less secure they will feel, and the end result is catastrophe.

But has such advice been taken seriously? In a more recent speech to the British Parliament, the United States President at the time, Ronald Reagan, emphatically stated: “Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace.” Apparently this is also the viewpoint of most governments today, for, in the name of national security, nations have taken to arming themselves with more and more deadly weapons of war​—nuclear, chemical, biological and others. Following the lead of the superpowers, a number of the developing nations are not far from joining the nuclear club. The result is that no nation feels secure any longer, and all of this is bringing man and his home, the earth as we know it, to the brink of total destruction.

For years environmentalists have been decrying the devastating effects of technological development on air, water, soil, and plant and animal life. But the lure of profit and higher living standards proved to be far more appealing. People rationalize that if a project creates jobs and profits, then whatever environmental damage or health hazard it may produce can be overlooked. A clear case in point is what took place in Minamata, Japan. Early in the 1950’s it was discovered that the high methyl mercury level in the fish eaten by the people of the fishing villages near that city led to serious impairment of their hearing, sight and speech, and to deformed bodies and limbs in infants and older people. The mercury came from industrial discharges of the factories in the area. Action was not taken until a second outbreak at Niigata, Japan, provoked the government to establish a pollution-control agency.

Such incidents can be multiplied many times the world over. And many of them involve far more serious problems, such as acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and disposal of toxic wastes. The net result is not just physical damage to the people of Japanese fishing villages but the potential breakdown of the entire life-supporting system of the earth. Yet, “there is around the world today still a complacency about the state of the environment,” says James A. Lee, director of environmental affairs for the World Bank. “Despite the heightened awareness over the past decade,” he adds, “environmental concerns somehow are not regarded as serious enough or the consequences seem too far removed in time.” People and nations are too entangled with the present economic and political issues to be bothered with the future.

Other examples can be cited, including the ailing world economy and rampant crime and violence, which greatly affect the quality of life. Simply stated, much of this is the result of people’s insatiable pursuit of pleasure and wealth​—now. Wanting to “do their own thing,” they abandon all standards and restraints, leading to utter disregard for other people’s property and life. And, wanting to have everything now, people​—and governments—​plunge heavily into credit buying, leading to runaway inflation, which can render worthless what they have. As long as the “me first” and “now” mentality remains it is unlikely that the future will be any better.

Lessons to Be Learned

What can we learn from all of this? What does the past tell us about the future?

First of all, in spite of the fact that a great deal more information about trends and dangers is readily available today, it is highly unlikely that people will act any differently from the way they did in the past. Much of the information will continue to be ignored, just as it has been previously. If a better future depends on people’s willingness to make sacrifices and change their way of life (which many authorities recognize to be the case), then we have very little reason to be optimistic. The proviso “unless something is done” in the futurists’ forecasts is resting on very shaky ground.

More serious than this, however, is the fact that many of the difficulties that we are facing today are a direct result of the evident shortsightedness on the part of governments, agencies and private individuals. Many of the studies, conferences and special commissions often work at cross purposes in their vying for fundings and recognition. And, at best, they are merely tinkering with the symptoms. There is no government, agency or individual on earth wise, powerful and influential enough to plot the course and bring about the changes needed for a better future.

Where does all of this leave us? What hope is there for a better future?

Hope for a Better Future (Awake!—1983)

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

What makes you say people posting here haven’t read it?

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Well, I read it. Several times in fact.

Yes, Orwell was a socialist. And yes, Nineteen Eighty-four was a warning of sorts. A warning to heed the past so it is not repeated several-fold worse in the future. Orwell took fictional license to speculate about what that future might look like as a result of not heeding the warning.

I realize you weren't replying to me directly, but you painted with a pretty wide brush there, so I wasn't sure if you were preaching at me also from your pulpit.

Outside of that, I'm not really sure what the point of your lecture was.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I had to read it the first time it was around 1976 or so (dating myself here). By that time the novel was pretty widely regarded.

Fundamentally, I think one of the reasons it was often required reading wasn't so much that the TPTB wanted younger generations to read it as much as was academia thinking it was a good lesson in the potential perils of not understanding history, in an educational context. When you look at it from this perspective it makes sense.

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”