George Orwells 1984?

I don't mind if somebody makes a proper stab at it, tbh.

E.g

1. War is important for consuming the products of human labour; if this work were be used to increase the standard of living, the control of the party over the people would decrease. War is the economic basis of a hierarchical society.
2. There is an emotional need to believe in the ultimate victory of Big Brother.
3. In becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. The continuity of the war guarantees the permanence of the current order. In other words, "War is Peace"
4. There have always been three main strata of society; the Upper, the Middle and the Lower, and no change has brought human equality one inch nearer.
5. Collectivism doesn't lead to socialism. In the event, the wealth now belongs to the new "upper-class", the bureaucrats and administrators. Collectivism has ensured the permanence of economic inequality.
6. Wealth is not inherited from person to person, but it is kept within the ruling group.
7. The masses (proles) are given freedom of thought, because they don't think! A Party member is not allowed the slightest deviation of thought, and there is an elaborate mental training to ensure this, a training that can be summarised in the concept of doublethink.

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/summaries/1984.html

But even that doesn't have much basis in modern Britain.
It sounds great but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
The comparisons never really seem hold up that well.

I said I don't like it, because the majority of the time the comparisons are cheap and lazy. It gets a little tiresome.

However, I'll happily read any fair comparisons you can make between 1984 and the UK/US

 

Well I did only suggest they were subtle similarities, when you try an line up an egg to a circle it's not going to be perfect unless it's on it's side or askew.

 

I didn't mean perfect similarities.
Ok, what are a few "subtle similarities".

 

Well for instance, your e.g. #7, While thought crime against the Powers that be is not strictly persecuted in America, the Patriot act and some of the following doctrines following 911 added many classifications of organizations to terror group watch list's.
Environmental activists, Political activists and in some cases advocates of the 2nd amendment are viewed with much closer scrutiny than they were prior, walking a fine line in the eye's of the government between being a legitimate organization and a terrorist group.

So while it's not perhaps such a clearly drawn line between the two, it does hint to there being elements at work which are pushing towards a similar style of rule but in reality it's not so much for the sake of a literal "Big Brother" figure as it is a mix of Corporate and financial institutions.

I'll make a point to re read the book and come back with more (It's been a good decade or so since I last read it.)

 

I can see your point.
There might even be e.g's of it occurring (is there?)
However, IMHO, there are far too many environmental activists, political activists and advocates of the 2nd amendment (In America) going about there daily business for me to give it too much credence, though.
But yeah, totally see your point.

That'll be good.

Perhaps a few others could too.

 

Well Orwell was more than just an author, he was a really skilled financial analyst as well, swam in the same circles as the Rockefeller's and such and was for a while quite the advocate for the NWO concept that was popular back in the early industrial revolution era. Then one day he sat down and decided to try and envision the worst possible results of such a governing over a society. 1984 was his conclusion.

And the reality is that even the powers that be which would like to not have those activists active understand the necessary function they serve to their plans.

By their very presence and operations it gives the appearance of "freedom" and the will of the people being heard. But stop and think for a minute, how much real impact do these activists ever really have on the global scale? What exactly do they ever prevent the Power structure of Government and corporate from doing? Starting Wars? Drilling for Oil? Adopting sensible Alternative energies using technologies that dont cost more than what we're already using?

Sure they save a few trees here and there, protect a few wetlands at least long enough for everyone to have their backs turned 20 years later and maybe on occasion get a leader who's corruption can no longer be hidden from public scrutiny thrown out of office, but overall, Governments act relatively unhindered by activism and so do corporations. Sure they have to set up shop in places other than initially planned at times, or perhaps they need to be more careful about how they give financial aid or military support to other nations, making sure theres some other antagonist in the region before getting their boots on the ground, poking at beehives just long enough to get stung once so they can turn and say "Hey, those bee's are Bad, we need to break that hive up and redistribute the honey!!

So in many ways you're right, things are quite different than Orwell outlined in his book, but the way's in which they differ are not truly to our advantage as we are lulled into believing that the power is with the people and the Prolls can shape the future when in actuality we are merely led by carrots to pull the wagons of our Corporate masters.
Same old couch with new sheets thrown on really.

 

I've never heard that.
Have you something (further) I could read about that?

I've read he was commenting on the world at the time, and trying to tell Britain not to end up like that, just because of some superiority complex Britain had.

If you look around his world (even now) you can see elements of what he writes about - North Korea et al.
You don't have to read between the lines, squint your eye's etc...it's an accepted mainstream view.

At the time he had Hitler and Stalin as archetypes, and they espoused some of the ideologies running through 1984, IMHO.
Greater arguments could be made if we were to compare those countries/people to 1984, IMHO.

We should also take into consideration what he said:
“It’s a ghastly mess now,” “a good idea ruined.”
Perhaps his feverish mind and disputes with government (while working for the BBC) made him mock and attack institutions around him...regardless of how accurate the criticism was (That's basically satire, right?)
Perhaps, to a certain degree, it's partly about the BBC...and you could understand, during the war, there was an element of propaganda and re-writing of history...but now?
It's almost impossible to do such things in the UK/US...there is just too much information out there.

We can vote them out.

IMHO, your own prejudices and opinions are coming out now.

Did you miss Copenhagan...?
Do you miss the constant talk of climate change and alternative energies...?
A few trees and a few wetlands???...how about a few million acres.

Why do you think Corp's have corporate responsibility charters and commitments? For laughs?
It's either public anger and resentment forcing change (keeping the customer happy so they continue to buy your product.)...or a genuine commitment to change for the better.

IMHO, if you are right about him...you are both wrong about your conclusions.
However, I think you hit the nail on the head earlier: "Then one day he sat down and decided to try and envision the worst possible results of such a governing over a society. 1984 was his conclusion."
I can totally see how the world could end up like 1984 if there wasn't dissenting voices, checks and balances and vast organisations tearing that world apart on a daily basis.
It works best in closed societies and societies cut off diplomatically and culturally from the rest of the world.

I don't mean to be too critical...I'm projecting my own POV too.

 

But "voting them out" is such a crock o' chips. Sure theres the vacancy, but it's shortly thereafter filled with another fuckwit who never makes good on a word of campaign promises, simply learns from his predecessor to tread more lightly. It would be great if we really had ethical politicians, but I may as well start wishing for a full blown utopia if I dare start wishing.
The two party system just keeps the ball bouncing back and forth between the two basic sides of the court amongst the general populace (Which is a somewhat fluid thing of course as people get disgruntled after 4 years and simply flip the coin to side with their opposition when they see how ineffectual their previous party of choice was.

The other issue I take with voting is it seems that often many voters are simply calcined in their voting habits, siding with a particular party, or worse yet voting for the guy who wears the sharpest tie or most colorful pair of socks. And while it's great that it shows the outcome can be swayed by the G.P., it doesn't say much for the current system being all that effective in moving towards positive social changes in an efficient manner.

Anyway, I'll try and find that bit about Orwell, read it years ago but I'm sure it's on the interwebz somewhere,,, just no holding your breath for it. :cheers2:

 

I can only speak with a little authority about UK politics, tbh.
From my personal observations:
Not all campaign promises are met, true.
Some campaign policies are met.
Some critics can make a campaign promise that has been met seem as if it hasn't.
Some politicians and the general public believe what they wish regardless of any fundamental truths.

There are "ethical" politicians.
They might be short on the ground in America...there are quite a few in the UK.
Aside from the first few tiers of politicians do many people really know the politicians who don't seek publicity?

That's sadly probably true In the US.
Well, apart from this part, IMHO: "after 4 years and simply flip the coin to side with their opposition."
Here, all though the last time it occurred was nearly 70 years ago, there are atleast a chance a third party will gain office: http://www.libdems.org.uk/

I agree.

:cheers2: Thanks...and I won't

 

In fairness I guess I should clarify, in the U.S. we do have allot of Politicians who would appear to be ethical, but those are seldom as well funded as those of a more malleable integrity by Corporate sponsors and Lobbyists (Which imho is why this nation is doomed to run itself into the ground within the next 10 years or so, but that could be overly optimistic and it might take up to 20 as Politicians are after all good about backpeddling to fix calamities or at least whitewashing them so they dont appear as bad to the G.P..

 

fritzdakatz2

make your own mind up about 1984, don't let certain people whittle away its meaning , they are people with an agenda here.

the book speaks for itself and with great volume

 

He has...about 25 years ago.
If you have something constructive to add, please do.
Otherwise stop stirring up trouble where there isn't any.
Again, it seems only one view is allowed. Your own.
Ironic given the crap you spout about "free speech"

 

ermmm.... odon....

exactly what is wrong by suggesting to someone that they make their own mind up about the book?

do you have a problem with someone coming to their own conclusions about the book?

your problem seems to be two fold

you don't like this idea of someone constructing their own thoughts

you seems to have swallowed a whole lot of conclusions with little to no original thought or opinions of your own.

 

Because you are presuming FritzDaKatx2 hasn't.
You are presuming I'm trying to force my opinion onto somebody.
FritzDaKatx2, asked me a few question and I answered them.
You know, how forums generally tend to operate.
Along with people like you sticking their noses in, making snide remarks and baseless accusations.

No.
But I don't have to like/agree with those conclusions, do I?
Do you have a problem with someone coming to their own conclusions about the book?

Untrue.

Such as?

Perhaps you can post some original conclusions instead of being a pompous ass...hows that?

Or are you going to leave it at:

Yeah, cuz that's original.

 

odon why don't you come up with some original critique of the book? (instead of attacking me for some reason.)

my critique is that the book speaks for itself

yours was copy and paste

try writing down your critique of the book

 

Ummm, guy, we were just having a discussion on the book as it compares to current real world situations and the socio/political climate of the two nations we live in. Neither of us were trying to force our views down the others throats, merely exchange our views on it.

Of course if I were in the U.K. I'd probably be a bit more rabid about it being as they have all those freaking cameras with the facial recognition software all over the place.

 

Britain really is becoming Airstrip One.

 

It's ok, FritzDaKatx2, Guy is on his own planet.
You'll get used to him after a while.

Did you hear that, Guy?: "Neither of us were trying to force our views down the others throats, merely exchange our views on it."

The only place I know they use facial recognition - in the UK - is at airports, and they are used by the UK Border Agency.
If you know of other places, please share, thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB28Avk6VJQ"]YouTube- Facial Recognition Gates



Spooky, eh?

 

Why?

 

no problem

my view is that the book speaks volumes itself many of the ideas as expressed by the book are already in existence.

i'm afraid that for as long as the fanatics have got control in the uk things are going to get worse.