MIT Technology Review on Where Orwell Went Wrong 667
nakhla writes "MIT's Technology Review is running an interesting article entitled Who's Afraid of 1984? The article talks about Orwell's famous work, and examines how Orwell's view of technology's impact on freedom and democracy was flawed. The article points out that, in fact, freedom and democracy were strengthened by technological innovations, and addresses its affect on Stalinism and Nazism. An interestng read for those who are worried about technology's impact on our generation and beyond."
Re:More afraid of Socialism (Score:5, Informative)
Orwell was afraid of Totalitarianism, and both 1984 and Animal Farm should be viewed as a declaration against tyrants, not an endorsement of conservative values.
Re:More afraid of Socialism (Score:2, Informative)
"My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences." [CEJL vol. 4 p. 564]
Orwell was a socialist (Score:2, Informative)
One of Orwell's lesser known works was an essay called "The Lion and the Unicorn" (1941). I really recommend it for anyone who wants to know what Orwell really did think government should be like.
Reading this essay was one of the key turning points for me in my acceptance of democratic socialism. It presents an excellent vision of how Orwell thought Britain should re-form itself after the War. Indeed, the first Government after the War was a socialist-leaning Labour one which enacted some of the ideas that Orwell championed.
Now if only Henry A. Wallace had been VP when FDR died, we might have gotten some of the same reforms in the U.S. (National Health Service, etc.), not to mention avoided the intensity of the McCarthy era....
Re:They missed Orwell's biggest point (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the rich have so far tried the following arguments in this order.
"Global warming does not exist"
"Global warming might exists but it's not our fault and we can't do anything about it"
and finally when people didn't buy either one they are now increasingly trying this one.
"global warming is good for you"
That last one has also been used for toxic waste, genetic engineering, pesticides etc.
Points to note (Score:5, Informative)
The assumption that presidents need to understand physics (rather than employ well-informed experts as advisors on the subject) and the profession that Jesus used "magic and deception" to pose as the son of God (based on "historical facts and biblical references") makes me wary of his preaching.
Re:It's already here (Score:3, Informative)
Bush's 1984 (Score:2, Informative)
http://commondreams.org/views02/0707-06.htm
When I read that the Bush administration's proposal for a labyrinthine "Department of Homeland Security" included an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, a thought that had been scratching the back of my mind like an industrious mouse scurried into the open: There is something Orwellian about the amorphous "war on terrorism."
The proposed new department would combine 22 federal agencies and have more armed agents than any other agency. But the Bush administration doesn't want you to be able to find out what the hell it's doing. National security, you know.
This and constantly trotting out "the war" as justification for whatever the Bush crowd wants to do reminded me of Orwell's anti-totalitarian classic, "1984." I don't want to overstate the case, but flipping though my old paperback, there are creepy similarities.
In the nightmare world of Orwell's 1984, "Airstrip One" (aka England) is ruled by an all-powerful Party, and is in a constant state of war; the Party's motto reads, in part, "WAR IS PEACE." But the "enemy" shifts all the time between two distant nations, Eastasia and Eurasia. Not unlike Bush's slowly expanding "axis of evil."
Like the "war on terrorism," Airstrip One's war is far away, and is hazy to the average citizen. See if this passage echoes present reality: "In a physical sense, the war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at."
Orwell, according to critic Erich Fromm, "gives an impressive picture of how a society must develop which is constantly preparing for war." Bush declares this war will go on for 10 years or more. Whenever he or his lieutenants want us to swallow some new reduction in liberties -- i.e. the onerous USA-PATRIOT act, which enables more government snooping in private lives; BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU -- they haul out the war excuse.
I support an intelligence-based, targeted war on the diffuse threat of terrorists, as do many Americans. But that doesn't give the Bush hawks permission to go ranging off on any military adventure they choose, such as finishing Poppy's biz in Iraq.
Pretending that we are now in a "war" that demands sacrifices in civil liberties -- though curiously, none in material comforts -- is insulting. World War II was a real war, and Americans rightly gave up essentials to support the fighting overseas. It's disingenuous to suggest that the current "war" is remotely similar.
Of course, doublespeak was crucial to maintaining Party power in "1984," too. According to the Bush people, citizens aren't necessarily citizens if we just tag them enemies, and POWs aren't really POWs. And if they say it's war, damn it, it is war, whether the enemy shifts from al-Qaida to Iraq to...?
War is an instrument of power not just over an enemy, but over the citizens at home. And as a Party torturer in "1984" says, "Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler
No, it's not that bad. Not yet. But let's all keep an eye on who's lacing up their boots, shall we?
Forms of social control (Score:3, Informative)
Since 1948, however, a new form of social control has emerged. Some of you may recognize the name. It's called capitalism. The illusion of choice created by being able to choose from 25 kinds of peanut butter and 500 cable channels is a far more effective way of quelling revolt than systematically cutting down political oppostion. But political oppostion has been cut down all the same.
The capitalist system has so deeply entrenched itself that two things have occurred. First, those who suggest that there should be alternatives for everyone are labelled as "Commies" or "Dirty Hippies" and largely ignored. So, collective oppostion is nearly impossible. Secondly, it is next to impossible for a person (at least someone in a G8/G7 nation) to live outside of the capitalist system. Self-sufficient farming requires land, which requires property tax, which requires income. If you sell your product to pay your taxes, you cannot be self-sufficient but turn into a for-profit farmer. Vicious circle.
Orwell wasn't as wrong as the article would have us believe. Technology as used by the capitalist system did enable social control, but not in the way Orwell thought.
-asreal