RE: Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 combined?
November 1, 2012 at 11:08 am
(November 1, 2012 at 12:02 am)Ciel_Rouge Wrote: I have recently read the two books and let me tell you this: I think right now, in the year 2012, our reality is like a combination of these two books. I wonder what you think:
In Fahrenheit 451, people have flat panel TVs on their walls (!) and never read books.
In 1984, everyone has a TV in their flat that CANNOT be turned off.
Recently after visiting different people on different occasions I realized that a LOT of them have their flat panel TVs constantly on and never ever read books As far as the content of the programming is concerned, apart from tons of advertising it consists of a mixture of silly interactive shows that take a patronizing stance towards the viewer (like in Fahrenheit 451) and propaganda (like in 1984).
In F541 people didn't read books because they were forbidden. In 1984 people could read books but their content was controlled and constantly changed by the government. In both realities the purpose was to stop people from thinking too much after reading books. It was much better to simply "stupify" them with television. I wonder what you think about all this
What is so sick about business owners and the cooporate climate, is that these books were not on their side, but warned us of what a monopoly can look like.
As great as 1984 was, where it failed was that it takes resorces to create a monopoly. So the reality would be if that book were not fiction, those in control would have to control wealth and resorces to keep society under its absolute power.
It failed to say that ALL FORMS OF POWER still require resources to maintain that power.
I often warn people not to take "capitalism" as a form of government. The root of the word simply means "to gain resorces". It does not talk about ethics in how that is done, simple it means to gain resources.
China has a form of capitialism, the communist party maintains its power through the sale of cheap goods to the rest of the world and the use of slave wages and sweat shops. But it would not have that power if it did not make money to keep that power. Gaddaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.
It all cuts to the reality as long as people seak power they will need money to get that power. So to avoid 1984 the issue isn't ending wealth, but maintaining a ban on monopolies of power, be they political, religious or business.
What the right misses about 1984 is that ANYGHING left to it's own devices can and will seek a monopoly and it will always take resources to set up that monopoly.
I love 1984 because it reminds us of what can happen. But I hate it because people missunderstand it and use it to scare people into voting against their own self interest.
So when you talk about the flat screen TVs dipicted, what the right misses is that China would do that and North Korea would do that. But so would the Koch brothers. Monopolies are not an issue of politics or wealth, but absolute power through the force of using overwhelming resources to control others.
To say that that has not happened in America is bullshit. There was a period in West Virgina's coal mining history where the owners of the mine set up a monopoly where they owned everything from the housing to the grocery stores and paid the workers, not in currancy, but in company script. By the time the worker paid their bills, they were broke or in dept forcing them to be slaves to the company. It was basically legalized endentured slavery.
This is the mindset, NOT ALL, but the majority mindset of Cooporate America. It is looking at the potential profits of China and their slave sweat shop model which is succesfull fo rthe CEOS and investors, but is slavery to the worker.
1984 did not address this aspect of absolute power and far too often is used by the right to scare us into accepting the very thing we want to avoid and should avoid.
The point of the boiok isn't pro business, the point of the book is to avoid absolute power. As I pointed out, Gaddafi was not poor, so wealth does not mean you wont use it to become a dictator. Saudi Arabia's royal family controls the weath and thus maintains its theocracy.
THAT is what 1984 us warning us about. To avoid absolute power you must always understand that it still takes resources to set up that absolute power. And only the concepts of anti monopoly and andi abuse can keep any form of fascism at bay, including the immoral slave climate of the coal mines of West Virginia.
Money by itself is not evil. wealth by itself is not evil. Ignoring the fact that it can be used to abuse and control others is evil. To claim that never happens is bullshit when I have pointed out here that it has and can be used to abuse and control others.
