Let us not forget that Orwell was a Trotskyist who was taking issue with Stalinism specifically, particularly things we on the right don't find objectionable like having a strong leader figure. The message then is "Real communism hasn't been tried."
A lot of people miss this. His warning was that English *nationalism* and conservatives would result in the explosion of an administrative state when in reality just the opposite happened.
One of the biggest issues I had with the book before I understood this was how it seemed to attack marriage and make a big deal out of the affair Winston had with Julia. This makes much more sense when you understand the real underlying idea of the book.
My two cents on Orwell is that his brilliance doesn’t stem from a supernatural ability to predict the future, but rather from his keen understanding of human nature. Regardless of the author's intent—whether to warn or forecast what’s to come—dystopian literature is, at its core, satire. It satirizes society through the author’s perspective and extends to all societies where human nature is expressed and operates within the constraints of taboos—taboos that, whether we like it or not, are essential for social cohesion.
Therefore, IMO, dystopian literature reflects who we are and always have been, rather than predicting some spooky future.
Small bone to pick, but “proles” is not a synonym for normies. Proles are working class people. They are factory workers, farmers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. In today’s dystopia, they are the most likely to feel the negative consequences of multiculturalism/globalism. They’ve seen their jobs get outsourced. Their trades are undercut by floods of migrants. Their neighborhoods have soared in crime. For these reasons, they are often the ones most viscerally against these policies, and who will move ever further to discontent with the establishment.
Normie is an all encompassing term that includes the middle-upper class that holds establishment right principles, and might like someone like Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party of the last 20 years. Sure, there is overlap in these groups, but they are quite different.
I too have become interested in this topic, particularly as I was somewhat obsessed with dystopian literature in my youth. Would-be tyrants tend to be overtly power-hungry (Stalin) or empty suits (Kamala) who do not have the ability to grasp much more than take power and force people to do things. It takes a brilliant writer like Orwell to understand human nature and conceive of ways to coerce people in their language, habits, and thoughts. Without 1984 and other dystopian works, I do not think many of these tyrants would know how to systematically restructure our language, organize two-minute hates, and control the flow of information as minutely as they do now.
However, it's a double-edged sword. My political awareness was only awakened through that work and others. I think effective dystopian literature (not the YA slop they produce now) activates the 20% of the population who account for much of the cultural production and innovation according to the Pareto Principle. The 80% Normies don't really understand it beyond parroting talking points. The forces for good within the 20% then are able to try to think how to anticipate and deal with the dystopian elements while the forces for bad within the 20% find more ingenious ways to advance themselves and domineer others.
Huxley was more original than most of these dystopias, and much more accurate. He realized earlier that a society can be totalitarian without even needing to kill opposition. Dissidents are merely marginalized with other "interesting people" and never allowed to interact with society again in BNW. That's also a very popular book, which is very insightful, which has had precisely 0 ability to stop it's own prediction.
Let us not forget that Orwell was a Trotskyist who was taking issue with Stalinism specifically, particularly things we on the right don't find objectionable like having a strong leader figure. The message then is "Real communism hasn't been tried."
A lot of people miss this. His warning was that English *nationalism* and conservatives would result in the explosion of an administrative state when in reality just the opposite happened.
One of the biggest issues I had with the book before I understood this was how it seemed to attack marriage and make a big deal out of the affair Winston had with Julia. This makes much more sense when you understand the real underlying idea of the book.
Good stuff, looking forward to part ii.
My two cents on Orwell is that his brilliance doesn’t stem from a supernatural ability to predict the future, but rather from his keen understanding of human nature. Regardless of the author's intent—whether to warn or forecast what’s to come—dystopian literature is, at its core, satire. It satirizes society through the author’s perspective and extends to all societies where human nature is expressed and operates within the constraints of taboos—taboos that, whether we like it or not, are essential for social cohesion.
Therefore, IMO, dystopian literature reflects who we are and always have been, rather than predicting some spooky future.
you hit that nail right on its head. keep hammering.
Small bone to pick, but “proles” is not a synonym for normies. Proles are working class people. They are factory workers, farmers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. In today’s dystopia, they are the most likely to feel the negative consequences of multiculturalism/globalism. They’ve seen their jobs get outsourced. Their trades are undercut by floods of migrants. Their neighborhoods have soared in crime. For these reasons, they are often the ones most viscerally against these policies, and who will move ever further to discontent with the establishment.
Normie is an all encompassing term that includes the middle-upper class that holds establishment right principles, and might like someone like Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party of the last 20 years. Sure, there is overlap in these groups, but they are quite different.
I find 1984 way too soft and optimistic. What we are witnessing today is Camp of the Saints. That one is the best and most underrated novel
Orwellian doublethink in real time.
I too have become interested in this topic, particularly as I was somewhat obsessed with dystopian literature in my youth. Would-be tyrants tend to be overtly power-hungry (Stalin) or empty suits (Kamala) who do not have the ability to grasp much more than take power and force people to do things. It takes a brilliant writer like Orwell to understand human nature and conceive of ways to coerce people in their language, habits, and thoughts. Without 1984 and other dystopian works, I do not think many of these tyrants would know how to systematically restructure our language, organize two-minute hates, and control the flow of information as minutely as they do now.
However, it's a double-edged sword. My political awareness was only awakened through that work and others. I think effective dystopian literature (not the YA slop they produce now) activates the 20% of the population who account for much of the cultural production and innovation according to the Pareto Principle. The 80% Normies don't really understand it beyond parroting talking points. The forces for good within the 20% then are able to try to think how to anticipate and deal with the dystopian elements while the forces for bad within the 20% find more ingenious ways to advance themselves and domineer others.
Huxley was more original than most of these dystopias, and much more accurate. He realized earlier that a society can be totalitarian without even needing to kill opposition. Dissidents are merely marginalized with other "interesting people" and never allowed to interact with society again in BNW. That's also a very popular book, which is very insightful, which has had precisely 0 ability to stop it's own prediction.
I couldn't even finish this it's too depressing,