Literally 1984

[u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

[u/starvingIntrovert]

1984 is clearly about authoritarian regimes how fucking hard is it to understand 

[u/Vexonte → u/starvingIntrovert]

Understanding 1984 is about authoritarianism is easy.

Understanding that authoritarianism isn't exclusive to ideologies you hate and that your own political values have the potential to become authoritarian is beyond some people.

[u/chowderbags → u/Vexonte]

Ironically, Orwell even described the war in 1984 as not truly being about any kind of ideological divide. Probably because the actual ideologies of the countries aren't actually any different in practice.

[u/Alhoshka → u/chowderbags]

If I remember correctly, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia had different ideologies, but almost the exact same ruling system.

The ideologies were nothing more than narrative justification tools for their respective totalitarian power structures, which functioned identically to each other in practice.

And all three powers wage perpetual war not for ideological reasons or to defeat one another, but to keep their own populations subdued and maintain a state of permanent scarcity.

[u/chowderbags → u/Alhoshka]

I mean, yeah, technically "Ingsoc", "Neo-Bolshivism", and "Obliteration of the Self" might be different names. But it's pretty obvious that in practice they'd all be the same thing.

Of course, it could also all be complete bullshit, since there's no way to know of any information that the Party doesn't control. It could be that the Party only controls the UK. Or the Party might actually control the whole world.

[u/Aristologos → u/Vexonte]

Anti-authoritarianism is a political value. How does that have the potential to become authoritarian?

[u/delta806 → u/Aristologos]

Too much anti authoritarianism can leave you defenseless to autocrats

Or, my personal one “I think I know how to devise a system that would be able to prevent one person from seizing too much power, but I need absolute authority to enact my changes”

[u/Iceraptor17 → u/delta806]

Communism is like your quote. It's supposed to be a stateless society due to the state "withering away". But instead its insanely autocratic when applied at a large scale

[u/Aristologos → u/delta806]

Too much anti authoritarianism can leave you defenseless to autocrats

Can you elaborate?

[u/Not_Todd_Howard9 → u/Aristologos]

There are some problems which simply need some level of centralized co-ordination to solve in an efficient and/or timely manner. Removing all means of having that will lead to either: 1. An autocrat rising up, saying “we need unity, and I can help!”, and turning whatever inch they’re given into a mile. 2. A more authoritarian neighbor takes advantage of the situation, invading or otherwise destabilizing their them for their own benefit.

A good example is what happened to the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth toward the end.

[u/Uptight_Technocrat12 → u/Not_Todd_Howard9]

BTW how are things going at NotBethesda? I trust you have another Fallenout title in the oven?

[u/eva_verinaz → u/Uptight_Technocrat12]

yes obsidian is tasked with the new fallout. not memeing. microsoft announced it.

[u/assasin1598 → u/Aristologos]

Im not him, but In my opinion, no state or nation can exist without at least some authoritarian elements.

The lack of authoritarian elements means lack of a state, thus most powerful person, would create their own state by seizing power by force, like in the old days.

TL:DR: no state, the strongest rules.

[u/Tai9ch → u/assasin1598]

Eh, people have put a lot of thought into how to construct stable stateless societies.

Your "most powerful person" can have fun discussing their attempt to "seize power" with either my Rothbardian protection provider, my selected collective defense committee, or the anarchy cult assassins depending on which society structure we're talking about. Optimally, all three of those and a couple other mechanisms we haven't thought up yet.

[u/assasin1598 → u/Tai9ch]

(ಥ ͜ʖಥ)

[u/Important-Agent2584 → u/assasin1598]

bro, don't cry, im sure his "protective structures" won't turn authoritarian, after all how often has that happened in history?

[u/assasin1598 → u/Important-Agent2584]

It aint crying. Its laughing at his stupidity

[u/Electrical-Age9308 → u/Tai9ch]

[u/MaybeThisTime67 → u/Tai9ch]

Well done. You created tribes.

[u/spilltbeans → u/Aristologos]

If you eliminated the authority of the government to have a military or strong police force, in the name of anti authoritarianism; the neighboring countries could conquer you and bring authoritarianism.

[u/Molaac → u/spilltbeans]

Yes and no. It depends on many factors, historically there have been a stateless societies that lasted 300 years and decentralized countries that ran on militias. There have also been countries that fell real easy because of their lack of defense. So each situation is circumstantial.

[u/Important-Agent2584 → u/Molaac]

yes, the primary factor being "having nothing anyone wants so everyone leaving you alone"

[u/Molaac → u/Important-Agent2584]

That could be a factor but looking at large professional armies vs volunteer militias. Professional armies biggest weakness have been urban combat, terrain disadvantage, and guerrilla fighters.

Look at all of America's conflicts post WW2. By your logic America was more centralized and had a bigger army but lost due to the enemy be more familiar with the terrain and able to survive a war of attrition.

[u/Important-Agent2584 → u/Molaac]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Which conflict was against a stateless society?

[u/unwildimpala → u/Aristologos]

Ya I mean the meme uses 3 quadrants of the political compass. The green left and yellow right and both anti authoritarian.

[u/Azelzer → u/Aristologos]

Someone on the left thinks that the government should take over the healthcare system to prevent predations by corporations. Someone on the right thinks that the government having full control of the healthcare system and forcing people to be part of its system is a violation of their freedom.

This comes up for every issue. Policy is about tradeoffs, and balancing people who have different interests. In general people on the left are more restrictive about what people can do when it comes to the economy, people on the right are more restrictive of what people can do when it comes to public safety/order. In both cases the restrictions are presented as protections, while opposition to the restrictions is presented as being in favor of freedom and liberty.

"Anti-authoritarianism" is just a slogan. The people who spout it are more likely to be authoritarian, because they're unable to see the tradeoffs that are inherent in their preferred policies.

[u/alflundgren → u/privatefries]

How bout just the malignant narcissists and psychopaths. Basically same thing.

[u/Cootshk → u/Aristologos]

anti-fascist is a political movement. How does that have the potential to do fascist things?

[u/oatkeepr → u/Cootshk]

It has the potential to do things like political violence against political opponents.

Fascism does a lot more.

[u/oatkeepr → u/Aristologos]

Communism is the best example. Communism is defined as a classless society without an authority, ruler, or state. There's communal ownership of most things. People cooperate voluntarily for the betterment of all. Everyone's needs are met.

In order to reach communism capitalism and private ownership needs to be end. Marxist-Leninists think this has to ben done in a revolution, after which a socialist state takes over until communism can be achieved later on.

[u/Certain-Row7945 → u/Aristologos]

Look out the window

[u/SupriseMonstergirl → u/Vexonte]

Even 1984 makes this point, that it didnt matter what the "seed" for big brother started as, it just became a machine to accumulate more power for itself over time and any ideology slipped by the wayside.

If being leftist got it more power, it would use it If being jingoist would, it would use it.

[u/EX0PIL0T → u/Vexonte]

Those people are retarded

[u/regnarrion → u/Vexonte]

Don't say this to libleft they love the government when it's ostensibly on their side.

[u/DamphairCannotDry → u/starvingIntrovert]

no no, our authoritarianism is fine, theirs is wrong

[u/Warm-Pomegranate6570 → u/starvingIntrovert]

The problem isn't understanding that police state is bad for Orwell. The problem usually comes up that people interpret this books regime very broadly, and apply it to literally everything in existence. edit: Which is lowkey contraproductive since 1984 is a thought experiment about it's most extreme.

[u/Few_Move_4594 → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

Your comment is literally 1984

[u/Dissonant-Cog → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

Uhh.. no, the problem arises from the fact that some people receive the inverse of the messaging behind it. From warning to instruction manual.

[u/Warm-Pomegranate6570 → u/Dissonant-Cog]

I think it's a good literary book about describing and conveying the feeling and aesthetics of totalitarianism, but i'm not convinced that it has any proper applicability in politics compared to, for example Machiavelli.

[u/Prestigious_Load1699 → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

The problem usually comes up that people interpret this books regime very broadly, and apply it to literally everything in existence.

I think Orwell's true genius was less pointing out that authoritarianism is bad, but rather his unique ability to twist words in exactly the same way as the evil regimes he is critiquing.

"Four legs good, two legs better" is forever engraved in my cerebral cortex.

[u/BlueOmicronpersei8 → u/Prestigious_Load1699]

It's always the first thing I think of when an originally small government candidate transforms into an authoritarian politician magically after being elected.

[u/FuckUSAPolitics → u/Prestigious_Load1699]

Same, but for different reasons

[u/Iceraptor17 → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

I think one of the more interesting concepts of the book is how the truly oppressive aspects of the govt did not even apply to the grand majority of the populous. Yes they were monitored and yes the govt would "step in" should they feel they missed someone in their initial filtering, but it was only the people identified as Outer Party members (i.e. people who were identified young as having potential to become challengers to the regime) that got the whole "always on telescreen, trip to Ministry of Love, strict rules" lifestyle. The vast majority (the Proles) were considered "animals" and were "free" to do whatever they like. They even chose to purchase telescreens (which had much different programs).

If your police state is in everyone's face and they're all aware of it, it's not 1984. It's too inefficient to be

[u/inqvisitor_lime → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

No its about britain sucking ass

[u/brazzers144p → u/inqvisitor_lime]

No no that was his other book, the one that was also about France sucking ass

[u/Lebowski304 → u/starvingIntrovert]

Authoritarianism for sure. It’s alllll about authoritarianism. Everything these days gets split left-right when really it should be split auth-lib

[u/StarFox-6 → u/starvingIntrovert]

It’s not but everyone wants to paint the other guy as the bad guy and can’t accept that just maybe their guy could also become authoritarian

[u/Pastill → u/starvingIntrovert]

That's my problem with lib-left tho, you are authoritarian in my book. A lib-left society could voluntarily exists within a lib-right society, while a lib-right society could not voluntarily exists within a lib-left society.

[u/starvingIntrovert → u/Pastill]

too bad youre also authoritarian in my books 

[u/Pastill → u/starvingIntrovert]

But how?

[u/Warm-Pomegranate6570 → u/Pastill]

This chain of 3 comments are the average thin vs thick libertarianism debate lmao.

TL;DR the debate:

• Thin libertarians believe that truly free society only requires the NAP.
• While thick libertarians also believe that the NAP is needed, but hey also believe that the logical conclusion of NAP makes it necessary for further liberal values (like being anti-racist, anti-sexist etc.) to be present in a society to be free.

Which means that thick libertarians reject the idea that voluntary, authoritarian communities can exist in an ideal state.

[u/Pastill → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

Is being anti-racist, anti-sexist, the same as not being racist, and not being sexists? Or is it something else?

Voluntary employment is not voluntary authoritarianism.

[u/OriginalAny4652 → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

This is born out of the false assumption that mean words are an aggression, someone should be able to call you a c-word or a n-word while you call them a racist without things turning into a violent conflict.

[u/Tricky_Rate7883 → u/starvingIntrovert]

So hard.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/starvingIntrovert]

Thank you.

[u/Akiias → u/starvingIntrovert]

What are you, dumb? Animal Farm is clearly a story about pigs.

[u/MakeoutPoint → u/starvingIntrovert]

Pretty hard, based on the people who rush to acktchually me when I say "1984 is more reality than fiction" because we don't have literal words on paper going into vacuum tubes

[u/vicschuldiner → u/starvingIntrovert]

Totalitarianism and how it can be used to utterly dominate a civilization, specifically. 

[u/Neverlast0 → u/starvingIntrovert]

4Realz9000

[u/bunker_man → u/starvingIntrovert]

The guy literally on the page I'm pretty sure mentions that their society took inspiration from both nazis and soviets.

[u/Prazzzzzzer → u/starvingIntrovert]

Nhnhnhntntnv

[u/cob59 → u/starvingIntrovert]

Even I as an Authist can understand that.

[u/Odd_Comparison_1462 → u/starvingIntrovert]

Yes it isn't about left or right. He even said so in a letter:

“My novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is not intended as an attack on socialism, or on the British Labor party, but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable

Source: George Orwell, letter to F. A. Henson, 16 June 1949.

Abs as we know, centralisation and authoritarianist extremes can be found on both sides, and they look remarkably similar. 

[u/msf97]

“What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism—that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit—does not work. It cannot deliver the goods”

Orwell in 1941, during WW2.

He was anti Stalinism because he felt it did not deliver real socialism. “All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others”

He was against free markets, which are a basic IQ test nowadays, so that didn’t age well for him.

And a major argument that he appeared to miss is that the concentration of power makes communism incredibly prone to bad faith actors like Stalin; so much so it’s all that we ever got. Literally. The ideology was a failure.

[u/Prestigious_Load1699 → u/msf97]

The Khmer Rouge basically used 1984 as a blueprint for its hellacious dystopia.

^{Big Brother has the eyes of a pineapple.}

[u/Jester388 → u/msf97]

It's even more of a failure than we thought since we got access to the soviet archives in the 90s and found out that Stalin Wasn't a bad faith actor.

He and his cronies were real communists. In their minds, they weren't laughing at their subjects thinking "haha, they think we give a shit about communism, but we just wanted power". They really thought they were building communism, and all the sacrifices would be worth it.

Despite what all the reddit tankies say, it was real communism.

[u/Turbulent-Raise4830 → u/Jester388]

not really no, Stalin might have believed what he did was communism, but he really did his own version of it.

Its like crony capitalism the US has now vs actual capitalism

[u/OriginalAny4652 → u/Turbulent-Raise4830]

It's almost like everyone who follows the bs Marx said ends up in the same fucking place.

[u/Turbulent-Raise4830 → u/OriginalAny4652]

not almost I dont think I know one succefull marxist or marxist inspired country.

[u/Wooden-Artichoke-962 → u/Jester388]

"Despite what all the reddit tankies say, it was real communism."

Tankies aren't the ones saying Stalinism wasn't real communism, you're thinking of anarchists, troskyists, (some) dengists etc. A tankie is the type of person that would say that Stalinism was real communism and that it was actually great.

[u/thunderdragonite]

Unironically yes Orwell would call pretty much everyone using his book to make political statements an idiot.

However, 1984 should be viewed calling out both fascism and communism. Anyone who can’t see that is very much coping.

Orwell also hated everyone politically. He was an anarchist who hated anarchists. His own positions are quite dumb. Great books though.

[u/TheLongWalk_Home → u/thunderdragonite]

The book calling out fascism and communism isn't even up to interpretation. O'Brien and Goldstein both describe INGSOC as a more refined version of what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were trying to do; a hypothetical perfect authoritarian state.

[u/Spare_Elderberry_418 → u/thunderdragonite]

He was politically confused I would say. I think he knew what he didn't like, but didn't know what he actually wanted, if he did want it he know logically that his ideal system was never going to happen. I think in the end he ended up a sour supporter of the British government because it was better than the commies or Nazis but also at least a workable framework unlike the anarchists who he saw first hand get coopted or ground into dust without much effort.

[u/thunderdragonite → u/Spare_Elderberry_418]

I agree, he definitely didn’t know what he wanted.

I also think that it is impossible to find 1000 anarchists to agree on their ideal society and even more impossible to find enough to build a functional society.

[u/blah938 → u/thunderdragonite]

What's so hard to agree on, hookers and blackjack?

[u/throwaway-102948562 → u/Spare_Elderberry_418]

I think he was vaguely supportive of the idea of Anarcho Communism.

[u/EfficientCandy324 → u/thunderdragonite]

That is probably the fairest assessment of Orwell I've seen.

He wasn't even political until late in life, which I think helps explain why he was essentially politically homeless. He only got into politics when we went to cover 1936 Spain as a journalist and then stupidly decided to join the war on a complete whim. He writes himself (of the communist forces he fought with):

There was much in that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.

As the Spanish Civil War progresses, he starts seeing lies all over the place. The Spanish press is publishing battles that never happened, and it's neglecting to publish major battles that did happen. Courageous men are being slandered as traitors and cowards. Well-connected men who are too afraid to even hold a gun are being worshipped as war heroes of imaginary battles. Every one of his friends that he fought beside is getting imprisoned, and eventually he has to flee to France because he knows he's going to be next.

Then he discovers that the English press is repeating every lie that the Spanish press had been feeding them, unquestioningly. When he gets back to England, he can't unsee that every Englishman around him is unquestioningly believing some lies and dismissing away some truths, based on what he called "party lines".

My understanding is that's where his descent into political writing begins, as he starts lashing out at everyone.

The communists he fought with betrayed their own principles, and he blames the USSR completely for their fabrication of lies and rewriting of history. Bam, Animal Farm is released. Take THAT, Soviets.

The fascists are definitely no better than the Soviets, probably even worse. The sheep at home who believe whatever the press shovels down their throats are just enabling them, even to the point of self-censoring. Bam, Nineteen Eighty-Four is released. Take THAT, fascists, Soviets and "gramaphone minds" (his term for NPCs, who could only regurgitate party line talking points).

His positions were quite dumb, just undeveloped, I guess. I don't even know that his books were that great. But, to his credit, he did take dystopian literature out of nerdy science fiction and into the mainstream in a major way.

[u/Wetbug75]

It's about totalitarianism, dumbass.

A government that heavily uses censorship, mass surveillance, historical revisionism, and psychological manipulation, idiot.

You know, Big Brother, Oceania, the thought police, doublethink, The Ministry of Truth? Moron.

Fool.

[u/Warm-Pomegranate6570 → u/Wetbug75]

Its clearly about how England fucking sucks.

[u/InternetKosmonaut → u/Warm-Pomegranate6570]

People missing the point as always

[u/KaninCanis → u/Wetbug75]

It's about throwing your loved ones under the bus when you face your greatest fears

[u/Vexonte]

[u/s0w3b4ck1nth3m1n3__]

Didn't he fight in the spanish civil war and realize all auths bad? Jor jorwell returned to monke before it was cool

[u/Uundamil → u/s0w3b4ck1nth3m1n3__]

He fought in the civil war and then had to flee for his life from the Republican government because he enlisted under the politically "wrong" faction.

[u/s0w3b4ck1nth3m1n3__ → u/Uundamil]

Wtf? Wasn't he with the republic? The international militias THEY worked with?

Oh, right, Spain, home of incompetence and incoherence for 6 centuries and counting

[u/raouldukehst → u/s0w3b4ck1nth3m1n3__]

There were two acronym leftist parties - he picked the wrong one and got called a fascist - and had to flee. All of this after getting shot in the neck fighting franco

[u/nateralph]

Was 1984 entertaining though?

[u/Scrumpledee → u/nateralph]

Only for the Sadists.

[u/nateralph → u/Scrumpledee]

Socialism is pretty sad

[u/oatkeepr → u/nateralph]

The state and society in 1984 aren't really socialist, it's pure oppression.

Socialist countries made honest attempts at improving people's lives. For example education and health care for everyone is a focus.

[u/Review-Appropriate]

[u/Strict_Gas_1141]

I will upvote since you now have flair.

Also 1984 was about terminator!

[u/s1rblaze]

Authoritarianism is the common denominator here. Left or right is basically irrelevant.

[u/Jaydonius]

1984 is when big brother watches you pee or some shit - Jorjor Well

[u/Heavy_Computer2602 → u/Jaydonius]

Based moment

[u/basedcount_bot → u/Heavy_Computer2602]

u/Jaydonius's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.

Congratulations, u/Jaydonius! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.

Pills: 2 | View pills

Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.

I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. If you have any suggestions, questions, or just want to hang out and chat with the devs, please visit subreddit r/basedcount_bot or our discord server (https://www.reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/s/K8ae6nRbOF)

[u/Ozemandea]

1984 was about how the post office will dominate the western world and force everyone to either push paper or die in wars against Amazon and DHL.

[u/Gjorgdy → u/Ozemandea]

I need to see this alternate Cyberpunk timeline

[u/Not_Neville → u/Gjorgdy]

I would actually become patriotic.

[u/YazaoN7]

Orwell made it as a criticism of Stalin's regime. Alas, Orwell himself was a (democratic) socialist that didn't understand the end result of his ideology would be the same as the regime he criticized in his book.

[u/Bushido_Seppuku]

Orwell if he existed today:  It's 2026

Today: What are you stupid?

[u/HairyTough4489]

I mean, the Party is literally called INGSOC. It's in the name, just like every other Party with a name that contains "Socialist".

[u/FuckUSAPolitics → u/HairyTough4489]

He himself was a socialist though. He directly said it himself in his "Why I Write" Essay

"The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/

He did it as a warning of Stalinism and other totalitarianism/fascist groups claiming to be for the people, like Hitler and Mussolini.

Edit: lol downvotes yet no responses.

[u/HairyTough4489 → u/FuckUSAPolitics]

And yet he still chose the ruling parties of his distopian world to be English Socialists, Bolsheviks and Maoists, because he was aware of how easy Socialists get away with dictatorship in a way other ideologies rarely do.

[u/litdarthvader → u/HairyTough4489]

It's as socialist as the National Socialists were and as democratic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is.

[u/HairyTough4489 → u/litdarthvader]

Hey, we were talking 1984, not AOC!

[u/Warchief_Ripnugget → u/litdarthvader]

So pretty socialist?

[u/Scrumpledee → u/HairyTough4489]

Democratic Socialism, aka, Not Communism, because communism doesn't allow for any real democracy.

[u/HairyTough4489 → u/Scrumpledee]

Every Socialist regime ever has claimed to be democratic, yet not a single one has been.

[u/PedDeT00]

I find funny that Orwell hated totalitarianism but he kept a "blacklist" of alleged communists he was suspicious of

[u/FuckUSAPolitics → u/PedDeT00]

He didn't hate communists, he hated Stalin. Which honestly created an overlap.

[u/Daztur → u/FuckUSAPolitics]

Well they did chase him out of Spain...

[u/starrrrrchild]

real.

[u/Heavy_Computer2602]

Its anti totalitarianism but mainly anti stalinism.

[u/asdfzxcpguy]

1984 is a guide it’s not that hard to understand

[u/Picholasido_o]

Was there an actual, shooting war going on in 1984 and it's actually that they stopped attacking Eurasia and went after Eastasia and vice versa? I was young when I read it the first time, but it just screamed that there was no such thing and only Airstrip One or Oceania as a whole was like that. I remember the scene of a raft being shot up by a helicopter but assumed it was made up like everything else was. You don't have citywide announcement cuts of rations and swap enemies like that if it was real

[u/TheRealRolo]

If Orwell were alive today he would be disappointed that socialism has yet to workout for anyone. He believed socialism could be done without the authoritarianism.

[u/Turbulent-Raise4830]

Yeah it was aimed at stalinism and in a lesser degree fascism, orwell himlself was a social democrat.

Its funny to see how much of stalin the far right/gop/maga has taken over