Nineteen-Eighty-Four

[Brian37]

The government in Orwell's book did not condemn socialism, it condemned fascism.

Any political word claimed as a cure all if marketed properly can become a monopoly, and a monopoly is the core of fascism.

Every government in the world, in the more oppressive states to the more free states have "socialistic" elements. Totalitarianism in the form of a religious or political party is the problem, not the idea of social cooperation. Otherwise, if all socialism is bad, then we should not have police, firemen, military, social security or public schools.

Speed limits are a form of socialism, it is a social contract that says it is safer for all of us to go this speed on this road to avoid accidents and death, than to simply do whatever we want.

It is impossible in a civil society for some form of government not to form. All governments are a form of socialism. The difference between North Korea and the west is that our "socialism" is not totalitarian and is based on consent, protection of dissent, and the ability to change.

[liam]

The government in Orwell's book did not condemn socialism, it condemned fascism.

Any political word claimed as a cure all if marketed properly can become a monopoly, and a monopoly is the core of fascism.

Every government in the world, in the more oppressive states to the more free states have "socialistic" elements. Totalitarianism in the form of a religious or political party is the problem, not the idea of social cooperation. Otherwise, if all socialism is bad, then we should not have police, firemen, military, social security or public schools.

Speed limits are a form of socialism, it is a social contract that says it is safer for all of us to go this speed on this road to avoid accidents and death, than to simply do whatever we want.

It is impossible in a civil society for some form of government not to form. All governments are a form of socialism. The difference between North Korea and the west is that our "socialism" is not totalitarian and is based on consent, protection of dissent, and the ability to change.

I meant not that the political system condemned socialism but rather Orwell portrayed it as it was stereotyped to be at the time. Stalinism is not true socialism, it is a conservative socialism which would be equivalent to right-wing socialism, an oxymoron in itself. This saddens me as it only furthers the dated perception.

When you say that speed limits are a form of socialism it conveys to me the impression that you have misunderstood what is meant by socialism. Speed limits, insofar as being socially-agreed rules, that appears to be more akin to social constructionism than socialism itself. If this is not the case could you please clarify for me?

[Brian37]

ISM is a cluster fuck to humanity. You have to socialize or be isolated. So everyone has to cooperate at some point or constantly be at odds.

Orwells book was not anti government, it was anti fascism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think America is closer to 'Brave New World" than 1984

[Annik]

[...]
well honestly no, but this seems to me to be a sub-narrative in itself, the idea of love in the book is meant to be that of an eschewd connection and so their love may not reflect our idea of true love but when compared to the uniform party-supported marriage it can be seen as a massive departure towards real love

I know people who will describe their relationship as a lot more meaningful than I ever picked up on. If anything, I thought their relationship was shallow. :3

[Angrboda]

Can't say that I've ever read Orwell, though recent references suggest that I should. Not saying that I have an intelligent view on either, but I prefer Aldous Huxley to George Orwell.

[ElDinero]

Loved reading this book in college. I maintain that it is not only a wonderful book, but one of the scariest I've ever read. 'You are the dead' sent chills down my spine and the part at the end with the rats is horrific. I should read it again, also.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think America is closer to 'Brave New World" than 1984

If you are one of the affluent bourgeoisie,absolutely.

If you happen to be one of the urban poor or a Tennessee coal miner,perhaps not so much.

[StatCrux]

One of my favorite books, I would also suggest "Brave new world" and "Eyeless in Gaza" by Aldous Huxley.

[liam]

I know people who will describe their relationship as a lot more meaningful than I ever picked up on. If anything, I thought their relationship was shallow. :3

I would understand you would not feel it to be real but contextually it was as true love as it could possibly have been under the circumstances. In a society where love is reduced to passionless, obligated interaction, Winston and Julia are as true as love could be contemplated to be. I think this really reinforces the idea that people think only within their boundaries, if there was the potential for love it would be easier for them to express it as the modern understanding but there's a point when Winston considers their love as something that could not have existed prior to the party control, showing how his understanding of love was restrained by the societal understanding of love.

I feel that the way he sold her out at the end is the only thing that acts contrary to the idea of their love being true as he completely betrayed her and effectively killed all I wanted it to end as

However, reading it again makes watching V for vendetta all the more enjoyable love the stark parallels!