Originality Rating for this thread: 4.5/5 (6 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.1/5 (7 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 4.5/5 (6 votes cast) |
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #57008
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
 
   
|
Posted: Mon 2008-07-14 05:50
|
 |
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| Collapse of Ingsoc |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
Kenos gave me the idea to write this thread but I've wanted to for some time, so how do you think Ingsoc would finally collapse?
a couple theories:
Proletarian revolution,:this isn't as infeasible as it sounds, if the party adopted new-speak and the proles still retained old-speak or English in airstrip one as it were, this would leave them with a superior method of communication. Eventually just the fact that they are able to more quickly convey idea's would render the party obsolete, eventually they would recognize that the party didn't serve any real function, and despite having guns a bunch of duck speakers would not be able to control the great masses of people. This scenario would likely take decades if not several hundred years.
environmental disaster: this is one thing I feel like Orwell didn't fully appreciate, in the chapter "war is peace" he talks about how war stopped society's from becoming too inefficient, which is why the pharaohs and the Caesars couldn't deny the laws of math or science because other civilizations would wipe them off the face of the earth. What Orwell forgot was that environmental problems can serve as the same pressure. For example 2+2 can be 5 for a while but when your making a bomb or building a dam so that the Nile won't flood they have to be four. Yes the society in 1984 doesn't have to worry about war, but massive famine, flooding, energy shortage, environmental destruction.
internal schisms drive Ingsoc apart: I don't really understand who has power in Ingsoc so I won't elaborate but there is always division in a hierarchy, even one that spies on itself. I don't think this is very likely but then again things like this can be so random.
nuclear war: hysteria or the belief that a sudden stroke of treachery would actually win the war causes a nation to launch nukes, this would stop ingsoc in its tracks
any thoughts would be great
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #57010
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
    
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-07-14 06:04
|
|
| Politics: Inner Party |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I've thought about this before, so thanks for bringing this up as a topic. I've tried to think about how Ingsoc would fall, and it seems there's a few options. As for the ones you mentioned, here are my thoughts.
A proletarian revolution might occur. Even under totalitarianism, there's still riots and rebellions. Problem is, I think they'd be brutally put down and with lack of internal communications, no one in Town A would know that the people of Town B revolted and were brutally exterminated. I know you mentioned that Oldspeak can be used, but the proletarians aren't educated, and they don't know anything important.
An environmental disaster would definitely lead to revolts and civil disorder, at least in my opinion.
Now for my thoughts, there's a couple: decay, and stress.
If you notice in 1984, everything is decaying. No one has the intention or will to build anything. I think a population can only be submissive for so long without homes before they decide they have had enough.
And then there's stress. How can a civilization survive in a state of seemingly total war, with rocket bombs dropping all over your city every single day, with bombed out buildings, dead bodies, evil-tasting food, smelly clothing, hunger, lack of warmth? Orwell gave outlets for people's internal and subconscious anger, but I don't think a population can survive for 40 years in a state of total war without complete collapse.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #57020
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
  
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-07-14 16:21
|
|
| Politics: National Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
Well, given that the 1984 universe existed primarily inside Orwell's head and one of the key points of Orwell's narrative is "there is no hope except in the proles", I think we can safely assume that we are at least SUPPOSED (with a little bit of basic analysis) to come to the conclusion that there is no hope except in the proles. The "educated" Winston and Julia are utterly hopeless in the face of Ingsoc, and ultimately embrace it, but the proles are always more powerful and infinitely more immune to the seductive techniques of Ingsoc than anyone in the party.
While the Brotherhood probably does not exist, organised networks of proles DO exist and are even tolerated by the party; hence the organised crime that dominates the proleterian quarters. As for the Thoughtpolice... I don't think anyone thinking in Newspeak and truly loyal to the party could outwit the average prole, let alone the intelligent and ambitious one. The superior lucidity of thought and the proletarian cunning necessitated by the harsh life of the proles would make them much too slippery for the Thoughtpolice. After all, if a fundamental principle of Ingsoc is that the proles are animals, how can the Thoughtpolice HELP but underestimate them?
One of the key things that Orwell is satirising in 1984 IS the elitist attitude, held by much of the non-working class but particularly I suspect the middle classes, that the proles are somehow a lesser form of human and that they could never lead their own revolution. One finds this attitude in all sorts of places, from vanguardish "democratic" centralists fat-cats like Lenin to proto-fascist aristocratists like W. B. Yeats.
For a non-working class Marxist dictator-type like Lenin or Che Guevara, this point of ideology promises the power and prestige of a shepherd leading his oh-so-grateful working class followers into the meat-grinder. For an elitist in the conservative mold like Yeats, who felt that "Nothing can come from the masses", it promises a predicative assurance that the classist form of society is permanent and thus any resistance towards it is futile.
One of the things that I find disheartening about many people's readings of 1984 is that they more or less draw a blank with their analysis of Orwell's writings about the proles; it is as if the most apparent (to me at least) piece of Ingsoc in modern life is not war-fever or doublethink or constant surveillance, but the axiomatic supposition that the proles are vermin that is held by so many of the intellectual elite of the world, no less on the left-wing than on the right.
In fact, in every essay and book I've read on 1984 (I've read a fair few) from those of Christopher Hitchens to even working-class intellectuals like Stephen Ingle (a great guy in many respects) the entire issue of the proles is at best given cursory thought. Yet, in their demonstration of Orwell's morality- which, especially after the late 1930s, was heavily based in sometimes patronising notions of "working-class decency- combined with their constrasting effect of their humanistic values with the cold nothingness of the Inner and Outer party members' hearts, the proles play a central role in Orwell's narrative. 1984 would be a thoroughly depressing book, in my opinion, if it didn't have the promise of the inevitable victory of the proles when they smash aside the party and form a new society in a mold never seen before. The fact that many readers seek consolation in the Appendix, ignoring how this ties in with the proletarian revolution, illustrates my point.
Maybe one day I'll write an article on the matter, since it seems to be a vacuum in the world of Orwellian scholarship.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles..."
"We are the dead."
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wonderful News
Spy
Post #57187
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 100
Total Words: 9,411
Average words per post: 94.11
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2008-07-31 23:59
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| OotF wrote: |
| I don't think anyone thinking in Newspeak and truly loyal to the party could outwit the average prole |
This is a great point, especially in terms of 2050 onwards. Moreover, presumably the proles' natural language would evolve, as language does, giving them a code difficult to crack.
I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the idea of the proles over-throwing the state, but your suggestion that Orwell was throwing in an element of elites' blindness to impending uprisings does have mileage.
I'd like to suggest pestilence. It wiped out half of Europe (or whatever the percentage) one time. Given the squalor of Orwell's vision, I can readily imagine a lethal plague wiping out a massive percentage of the world's population, resulting in considerable political and social change.
_________________
Plusgood duckspeak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #57198
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2008-08-06 22:12
|
|
| Politics: National Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Wonderful News wrote: |
This is a great point, especially in terms of 2050 onwards. Moreover, presumably the proles' natural language would evolve, as language does, giving them a code difficult to crack. |
I think the salient thing that makes me feel sure of this is the studies I've done in the philosophy of language recentely. I mean, our basic experience of the world is pretty chaotic really: we intereact physically with matter but can never see it since our eyes can only view a limited spectrum of reflections of light; when things happen at a distance and we cannot see them, we rely on sonic vibrations; even our touch is indirect since the nerve endings don't extend beyond the skin. Beyond merely sensual confusion, our lives are structured around variable regularities and numerous assumptions based on questionable evidence such as testimony.
Not only does our language allow us to give some structure to this mess, but it actually is an essential part of our experience. So, typing on a keyboard, I can distinguish the keyboard from the computer from the desk from the room because I have the words with which to conceptualise everything.
When language and concepts become atrophied by totalitarianism, a certain sort of rot seems to set in. A good online book that demonstrates this by anecdote is Anthony Holloway's "Year In Pyongyang", a city iwhich within a matter of decades a society has become quite, quite mad, all due to the perpetual suppression and distortion of language. If one class (the Party) degenerates to such a reduced level of humanity and another (the Proles) doesn't, it's hard to see how the former class can continue to control the latter.
Perhaps that's what Orwell was getting at with the Party being willing to recruit a new generation from the Proles. Perhaps the new ex-Proles will then liquidate the Party and start afresh. In fact, given that even the date is in doubt, they might have already have done that on multiple occasions. Or perhaps Oceania has been in a perpetual stasis of development and the processes Winston observes are largely just propaganda and illusion; after all, Julia speaks almost no Newspeak despite being one of the young generation.
| Wonderful News wrote: |
| I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the idea of the proles over-throwing the state, but your suggestion that Orwell was throwing in an element of elites' blindness to impending uprisings does have mileage. |
Ultimately, one's belief in the power of the proletariat is largely a matter of faith. Marx had faith they would rise up, Lenin felt they needed wise pigs like himself to do it for them; Winston first accepted the triumph of the proles as gospel truth and then dispensed with the idea once he became an Oldthinker.
| Wonderful News wrote: |
| I'd like to suggest pestilence. It wiped out half of Europe (or whatever the percentage) one time. Given the squalor of Orwell's vision, I can readily imagine a lethal plague wiping out a massive percentage of the world's population, resulting in considerable political and social change. |
Quite possible. In economic terms, the rapid death of a large portion of the labour-force inevitably results in massive alterations for labour, decreasing labour supply to labour demand as a ratio. Even when it's just a case of labour shortage, as with the USSR after the 1960s, it can create considerable social tension. What happens when the surviving workers start to become aware of the increased value of their labour?
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #57206
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-08-09 01:00
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ultimately, one's belief in the power of the proletariat is largely a matter of faith. Marx had faith they would rise up, Lenin felt they needed wise pigs like himself to do it for them; Winston first accepted the triumph of the proles as gospel truth and then dispensed with the idea once he became an Oldthinker. |
historically speaking though haven't the lenin's of the world been at least in a short term sense more successful at revolution? and there definitely is something about having standards of comparison that is absolutely necessary for any kind of revolution to take place.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps that's what Orwell was getting at with the Party being willing to recruit a new generation from the Proles. Perhaps the new ex-Proles will then liquidate the Party and start afresh. In fact, given that even the date is in doubt, they might have already have done that on multiple occasions. Or perhaps Oceania has been in a perpetual stasis of development and the processes Winston observes are largely just propaganda and illusion; after all, Julia speaks almost no Newspeak despite being one of the young generation. |
I thought about that, eventually the party would be forced to recruit a new generation from the proles just because the proles would be far more competent at simple management tasks
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #57207
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-08-09 04:31
|
|
| Politics: National Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Azazel wrote: |
historically speaking though haven't the lenin's of the world been at least in a short term sense more successful at revolution? |
Depends what you mean revolution. Before Lenin, Russian peasants lived in squalor and misery with no rights, freedoms or incentives. After Lenin, Russian peasants lived in squalor and misery with no rights, freedoms or incentives. Before Lenin, Russia was ran by a labyrinthine imperial system of intrigue, patronage and authoritarianism. After Lenin, Russia was ran by a labyrinthine imperial system of intrigue, patronage and authoritarianism.
Let's face it, if there's one thing the USSR definitely was NOT, it was a dictatorship of the proleteriat. A dictatorship, sure, but one based on the exploitation of the workers, not the emancipation.
If by revolution you mean "a change of dynasty", then yes, Lenin was better at that. It's hard to see how a strictly Marxist development from capitalism to communism could even embody such an alteration.
| Azazel wrote: |
| I thought about that, eventually the party would be forced to recruit a new generation from the proles just because the proles would be far more competent at simple management tasks |
The question is: would the Party have such foresight? Historically, regimes are generally poor at replacing themselves whilst still maintaining even de jure continuity. Brezhnev-eseque patronage and inertia are strong forces in authoritarian societies that prevent pragmatic policy implementation.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenos
Spy
Post #57748
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 93
Total Words: 20,638
Average words per post: 221.91
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2008-11-14 21:30
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.5/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
I stumbled across another interesting perspective about the collapse of ingsoc; I think it's a bit off in that it seems to overlook the fact that entrance to the party is meritocratic and also open to prole children, but still it is true that the purges in the party also make it weaker should any competitors for power turn up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vSRcxRkq0
also the music is pretty neat  (it's from the musical version of les miserables) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #57753
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-11-15 07:21
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Kenos wrote: |
I stumbled across another interesting perspective about the collapse of ingsoc; I think it's a bit off in that it seems to overlook the fact that entrance to the party is meritocratic and also open to prole children, but still it is true that the purges in the party also make it weaker should any competitors for power turn up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vSRcxRkq0
also the music is pretty neat (it's from the musical version of les miserables) |
But it misses the point. Even if that 85% of the population were to subjugate the top 15%, they would merely replace it with an new 15% from their own ranks and start the whole thing over again.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #57754
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #57759
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-11-15 23:33
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But it misses the point. Even if that 85% of the population were to subjugate the top 15%, they would merely replace it with an new 15% from their own ranks and start the whole thing over again. |
why?
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wonderful News
Spy
Post #58878
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 100
Total Words: 9,411
Average words per post: 94.11
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2009-04-05 07:32
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I was just reading You and the Atomic Bomb and noticed the following, which perhaps offers Orwell's view on the matter:
| Quote: |
| The atomic bomb may complete the process [of insulating one nation from another] by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes. |
link
_________________
Plusgood duckspeak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Major General Despair
Junior Spy
Post #59006
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-05-21 20:52
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (4 votes cast) |
|
|
You underestimate the Inner Party. They say that the Proles are less than human to the Outer Party to cause a divide between them and avoid revolution under a middle-class leader.
The Party changes facts to fit their needs. They change the statistics for the distance between the Earth and the stars to fit needs of keeping Proles ignorant and for navigation. They can therefore tell then Outer Party that Proles are animals, but at the same time can realise the potential. The Proles make up the majority of the population, the Inner Party can surely see the power in majority, so keeps them ignorant or makes use of their intelligence to further the Party.
As O'Brien says, the upper class have the role of keeping their social standing, the middle class have the role of using the working class to overthrow the upper class and take their social positions, and the working class have no role in life. Might I remind that this is O'Brien's view in Part 3 of 1984 not mind.
The Inner Party are more intelligent than you give them credit. They create a divide between the classes to keep revolution from happening and they spy on the proles to prevent revolt. They drive wedges between the classes to widen the divide and prevent any revolt. The Inner Party are also not only born into the rule but are raised to it. My theory is that the Party recruits the most intelligent and loyal of the Inner and Outer parties and the Proles and then trains them with techniques of the Inner Party so that the Party can always remain. This helps them to stay immortal according to O'Brien.
I will finish this mini-essay with a quote about how the Inner Party remains in control. It springs to mind that the revolutionaries in the Outer Party are noticed and rooted out easily. Unlike the Inner Party, they are not immortal as a unit as they cannot form a secret revolutionary group without being caught due to the ever-present surveillance.
"Something will defeat you Winston, life will defeat you"
_________________
Nothing's ever different
'Cause all government's the same
They can call it freedom
But slavery's the game
There's nothing that you offer
But the dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution brother
Is year zero
Wealth is a ghetto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
