1984-A excellent way of ruling?

[Furga]

When i finished reading 1984 for the third time the other day i began to think about the political system that works under Big Brother in Oceania.

A one party system like many dictatorships in the world, but even more restricting than anything before in history.

Nothing the media says in true, everything is just propaganda and lies.
They claim there is more food than ever while people are starving, people are living longer and better than ever but the houses are falling apart and so does the people (North Korea is a good example).

The extreme glorification of the leader is something we recognize from many real dictators (Once again, N.K comes up when i mention Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Sung).

There is also the secret police who has cameras and microphones in every street and pretty much every building. They even vaporize those that doesn't obey the leader and think the right thoughts according to the party.


Even if most of this might seem like negative things i cannot help but think about the possibilities this system presents. When a government only consists of one party there is no discussion about whether or not one is going to implement a new decision or not. Sure, this allows a ruler to implement bad decisions, but that is up to the ruler. It is not the systems fault.
In a democratic government the politicians only debate about if they are going to do anything and then they will debate about what they are going to do (if they ever get so far that they decide they are going to do anything, that is). Those few propositions that makes it out of this procedure is usually something completely different from what it was in the beginning. This is because, in a democratic system, compromises have to be made. Nobody is allowed to be completely satisfied, everybody gets something that does not hurt them but they don't really want.


The propaganda and the glorification of the leader is more or less for brainwashing the people, when they believe their leader is a god and everything he says is true they will do anything for him.

The complete surveillance of the people is for preventing their own thoughts to go against the state, Macchiavelli was right, fear is much more effective than love when it comes to ruling people.


Anyhow, am i the only one that sees things this way? Isn't there someone else that thinks the ruler of a nation always should be a despot? It may be true that absolute power absolutely corrupts, but then i don't think that person is fit for being a ruler.

[43rdFoot]

In my opinion there is nothing good to be said about a system that wholly exists to serve itself, and treats human beings like dirty insects.

So, no. There is nothing "excellent" about the 1984 universe.

[Furga]

I think every human, ultimately, only serves themself.

[43rdFoot]

I think every human, ultimately, only serves themself.

And that's a good thing, how?

[Furga]

And that's a good thing, how?

I haven't said it is, you talked about a system functioning to only serve itself. To that i responded with something that it keeps in common with humans. I don't believe humans are democratic or fair of nature, that is just something that people claims they fight for.

Sure, democracy exists in some forms but it suffers from the problems i mentioned in OP.

It's impossible to micromanage society effectively.

Micromanegement will be handled by people within the party, the leader will handle the big picture with laws, foreign politics and overall guidelines for the party.

[kesa82]

I think 1984 was allegorical. Whether George Orwell himself intended it to be or not.
Things constantly happen right before your eyes that are never reported in the newspaper ?
That's my experience, and I don't live in North Korea.

[Furga]

I think 1984 was allegorical. Whether George Orwell himself intended it to be or not.
Things constantly happen right before your eyes that are never reported in the newspaper ?
That's my experience, and I don't live in North Korea.

Yeah, I think it was meant as a warning to people what would happen if dictatorships like the Soviet Union would control the world.

A little bit ironic that it was him that turned me into a fascist.

[Enemy of the State]

It's impossible to micromanage society effectively.

[Arch-hereticK]

It's impossible to micromanage society effectively.

You only have to micro-manage party members (15%), the proles live like animals and die like animals, they are of no matter.





Also it's a mistake to call Oceania a dictatorship, it's an oligarchy. The existence of a figure-head is purely figurative, a fictitious personification of the party.

[Axeman]

It's impossible to micromanage society effectively.

Exactly, real life is not a game of Civillization or Victoria:Revolutions, you have to put people on a flexible leash but know when to pull back*from the government POV*

The instant you replace the leash with a muzzle and wireframe is the instant you no longer have a human put a puppet.

[Azog 150]

If you don't care about the individual then its effective.

[dogukan]

well what is more important? Existance of state, or the lifes of people? Why do we even live if we are here to serve the state only?

[43rdFoot]

So you read 1984, and are still a fascist? The ?

[Furga]

So you read 1984, and are still a fascist? The ?

I wasn't before i read it, I became afterwards.

[Romanos IV]

I wasn't before i read it, I became afterwards.

This is because, in this kind of books, the reader reads only the supposed 'good' part with only the details the author finds fit to strengthen the goodness of the situation, because purposefully or not, the reader is to think by himself what's negative so that he knows why such regimes are 'evil', not because he's told so by the media or because this is the social standard.

In other words, it exercises your brain to react (and the way of reaction) against propaganda. And remember, if the book does not even promote or imply that you should use your judgement, it is propaganda.

Last but not least, you didn't state why such a way of government (which is totalitarian, but not fascist) would be good, and who would it be good for. The leader (in a certain European language called incidentally 'fuhrer')? The party members? The people who, as in the scenario, are starving? Or for those that believe what they hear from those media without using their judgement? And above all, for no clear reason, are starved to death? And if you think that would be a good government, would it be pleasant to you if you or your children would belong to the latter category?

That, sir, is usage of humans as inspects, and such a way of governing would be one of the worst insults to the human race ever.

[Furga]

This is because, in this kind of books, the reader reads only the supposed 'good' part with only the details the author finds fit to strengthen the goodness of the situation, because purposefully or not, the reader is to think by himself what's negative so that he knows why such regimes are 'evil', not because he's told so by the media or because this is the social standard.

In other words, it exercises your brain to react (and the way of reaction) against propaganda. And remember, if the book does not even promote or imply that you should use your judgement, it is propaganda.

Last but not least, you didn't state why such a way of government (which is totalitarian, but not fascist) would be good, and who would it be good for. The leader (in a certain European language called incidentally 'fuhrer')? The party members? The people who, as in the scenario, are starving? Or for those that believe what they hear from those media without using their judgement? And above all, for no clear reason, are starved to death? And if you think that would be a good government, would it be pleasant to you if you or your children would belong to the latter category?

That, sir, is usage of humans as inspects, and such a way of governing would be one of the worst insults to the human race ever.

The leader and the party members would be the ones living good lives as they are the state, the people (who serves the state) would believe they have good lives as their almighty leader tells them they have good lifes. Of course there will be people who don't believe that and then the thoughtpolice and brainwashing becomes useful.

If i were a member of the people during this rule i would work my way into the state and get a good life, if i wouldn't be "vaporized" for being so ambitous of course.

[Arch-hereticK]

If i were a member of the people during this rule i would work my way into the state and get a good life, if i wouldn't be "vaporized" for being so ambitous of course.

It is through testing as a child that decides your rank in later life. You have no choice in the matter.

[Hresvelgr]

The leader and the party members would be the ones living good lives as they are the state, the people (who serves the state) would believe they have good lives as their almighty leader tells them they have good lifes. Of course there will be people who don't believe that and then the thoughtpolice and brainwashing becomes useful.

If i were a member of the people during this rule i would work my way into the state and get a good life, if i wouldn't be "vaporized" for being so ambitous of course.

You need to read the book again. Conditions were perhaps worst for most members of The Party. Only the Inner-Party had some comforts, and the Outer-Party members (as in, most of them) were under constant surveillance. Proles were treated like crap, but were not as brainwashed or observed as the Party members. It was an allegory to Stalin's reign. As a commoner life was bad, but if you were in the Party you risked being taken away in the night for any reason or none.

[43rdFoot]

Wait, so you think it's perfectly reasonable to rule in such an evil way? Torture, genocide, endless war, thought control, brainwashing, demagoguery, brutality, and slavery is A-OK in your book?



You better pass that joint man, there must be some good stuff in it.

[Furga]

Wait, so you think it's perfectly reasonable to rule in such an evil way? Torture, genocide, endless war, thought control, brainwashing, demagoguery, brutality, and slavery is A-OK in your book?



You better pass that joint man, there must be some good stuff in it.

If it is the means to achieve something important, yes.

In the 1984-case that achievment is personal power which i think a majority, if not all, humans want.
Thus it becomes something important.

But even in our "free" society i think those means are usable if achieves an important goal.
"The goal justifies the means."

Also it's a mistake to call Oceania a dictatorship, it's an oligarchy. The existence of a figure-head is purely figurative, a fictitious personification of the party.

Yes, of course. Even if BB doesn't exist they obey him and makes sure "his" laws are followed, what I was thinking about was if there really wasa physical person that was BB.
Like i've said, many dictators gets worshipped in the same way and has the same "power" BB has. Even if he doesn't exist in the book he, or just his name, is extremely powerful.