1984, by George Orwell
1984, by George Orwell :
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they need not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labor power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labor that would build several hundred cargo ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labors another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always planned so as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life, but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favored groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy-his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motorcar or helicopter-set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call “the proles”. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty.
The last time I read this, it wasn't even 1984 yet. My friends and I were going through the motions in school, completely certain that we would all die in a nuclear war with Eurasia Russia before ever getting a chance to see the year 2000. Orwell's dystopian world of Newspeak, Thought Police, constant electronic surveillance, Two Minutes Hate, Ministies of Truth and victory gin was just the slightly less unpleasant alternative to the end of the world. Was it any wonder I became a cynical brat? The events of 1989-91, to my generation, were the equivalent of a call from the doctor that last year's stage four cancer diagnosis had been wrong after all. It made me love life for the first time since I was too young to know what war was.
In more recent years, I watched political bloggers compare the Cheney-Bush government with Orwell's Big Brother, and I cynically just went along. It took rereading the book to realise that they weren't kidding and that Orwell's warning was the neoconservative manifesto. They copied everything! The constant unnecessary war; the deliberate "shock doctrine" economic meltdown; the artificial encouragement of various xenophobias and hates; the war against intellect; the war against sex; the mangling of English; the intrusive surveillance; the stratification of society; the proudly claimed right to torture; the constant assertions, unchallenged by the media, that past statements had never been made. It's all there! 1984 is the wet dream of every fringe rightie from James Dobson to Dick Cheney himself.
If you doubt me, read the book. It's chilling. Fortunately, we eventually threw the fascists out of office and elected a Democratic Administration, which promised us a more progressive government and even painted a statement of principles on the side of the barn. But that's a book review for another day.
Seems to me, the thing that has most prevented Orwell's nightmere from happening has been the availability of the technology to anyone with an internet connection or an iphone. We the People can photograph the police violating human rights, and can broadcast footage of the politicians saying the things they subsequently claim never to have said. As long as that condition continues, they can't get away with it. This is why the Snowdens of the world are pursued with the kind of ruthlessness once reserved for muslim terrorists and people who asserted that the earth moves around the sun. Maybe Mira Grant was right and the bloggers are the ones saving the world right now. Them and Jon Stewart, anyhow.
This is a book everyone needs to read at least once, maybe more than once, with particular attention to the book-within-the-book, explaining how it happened and the motives of the Inner Party. Very high recommendations.
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they need not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labor power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labor that would build several hundred cargo ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labors another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always planned so as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life, but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favored groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy-his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motorcar or helicopter-set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call “the proles”. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty.
The last time I read this, it wasn't even 1984 yet. My friends and I were going through the motions in school, completely certain that we would all die in a nuclear war with Eurasia Russia before ever getting a chance to see the year 2000. Orwell's dystopian world of Newspeak, Thought Police, constant electronic surveillance, Two Minutes Hate, Ministies of Truth and victory gin was just the slightly less unpleasant alternative to the end of the world. Was it any wonder I became a cynical brat? The events of 1989-91, to my generation, were the equivalent of a call from the doctor that last year's stage four cancer diagnosis had been wrong after all. It made me love life for the first time since I was too young to know what war was.
In more recent years, I watched political bloggers compare the Cheney-Bush government with Orwell's Big Brother, and I cynically just went along. It took rereading the book to realise that they weren't kidding and that Orwell's warning was the neoconservative manifesto. They copied everything! The constant unnecessary war; the deliberate "shock doctrine" economic meltdown; the artificial encouragement of various xenophobias and hates; the war against intellect; the war against sex; the mangling of English; the intrusive surveillance; the stratification of society; the proudly claimed right to torture; the constant assertions, unchallenged by the media, that past statements had never been made. It's all there! 1984 is the wet dream of every fringe rightie from James Dobson to Dick Cheney himself.
If you doubt me, read the book. It's chilling. Fortunately, we eventually threw the fascists out of office and elected a Democratic Administration, which promised us a more progressive government and even painted a statement of principles on the side of the barn. But that's a book review for another day.
Seems to me, the thing that has most prevented Orwell's nightmere from happening has been the availability of the technology to anyone with an internet connection or an iphone. We the People can photograph the police violating human rights, and can broadcast footage of the politicians saying the things they subsequently claim never to have said. As long as that condition continues, they can't get away with it. This is why the Snowdens of the world are pursued with the kind of ruthlessness once reserved for muslim terrorists and people who asserted that the earth moves around the sun. Maybe Mira Grant was right and the bloggers are the ones saving the world right now. Them and Jon Stewart, anyhow.
This is a book everyone needs to read at least once, maybe more than once, with particular attention to the book-within-the-book, explaining how it happened and the motives of the Inner Party. Very high recommendations.