George Orwell’s 1984 seems more pertinent and alive than ever upon a recent reading. Chapter 9 of his great book includes excerpts from a fictional manifesto of rebellion by the primary enemy of the ruling party, Emanuel Goldstein. Some of the excerpts are quite striking (in a “now-more-than-ever” kind of way):
Chapter III: War is Peace
“War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious.”
“…in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at…”
“In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character.”
“The primary aim of modern warfare […] is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”
“The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.”
“In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat.”
“War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.”
To complete the trilogy of dystopian future novels, it is also worth revisiting Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. These two novels predict a narcotic entertainment culture and dawn of violent reality television, respectively. Collect all three!
Hey, don’t forget Asimov’s I Robot in your collection of novels about the plausible future. It’s the one where Will Smith kicks some serious robot ass while delivering spectacular one-liners on the way to saving humankind from our insidious robot overlords… um, hang on a sec. Apparently they’re shooting Farenheit 451 this year. Cross your fingers.
You sound more and more like an agitator, especially to those in the SOS: Students for an Orwellian Society, so beware, citizen, beware!
Hey Steven,
Don’t forget The Apostle Paul 😉
Ahhh… This brings back memories of Humanities classes. Time to revisit the classics, and perhaps, learn a few lessons. Thanks for the reminder.
xoxoxo,
DarlingNiki
There’s also Mokkingbird by Walter Tevis.
None of those excerpts particularly seem to accurately portray modern warfare to me. If fact Orwell seems to be way off the mark in some respects:
“It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference.”
Apply this to the US IRAQ conflict, and it doesn’t look too accurate does it? The US DOES have the ability to destroy Iraq, or any other counttry for that matter, oil is a very material casue for war, and ideologically speaking, these two nations are quite different.
Yeah, Andy, I have to agree with you.
Orwell’s vision of the future seems to miss the mark (at least in the current state of the world). I’ve always felt Huxley predicted the course of western culture/government better. I feel that we’re headed straight into A Brave New World not 1984. Both have the same result (controlling of Human beings) but the means are far different.
What does everyone else think?
The Invasion of Iraq is part of the “War on Terror” which has, as I recall, been described as impossibly unwinnable by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The threat of “Terrorism” can never be truly vanquished (according to Rumsfeld et al.) and so, in fighting it, America undertakes a perpetual state of war, in which case, The excerpts and Orwell are sadly accurate. By the same token, the Islamist Terrorists are also fighting an unwinnable war against “the West” and whatever it represents or, more accurately, what it is said to represent. How do you fight a war against a lifestyle where personal freedom is one of the weapons? The aims of the combatants, in both cases, is limited by the vagueness of the enemy. As for causes, Osama et al. have the decadence of the West and Rumsfeld et al. have the “threat” of Terrorism, neither of which are material-based. On ideology, there is a purported difference between the two sides, however, it has been pointed out that both the current regime in Washington and the Islamist Revolutionaries share fundamentalist conservativism as the defining factor of their religion and a willingness to impose this faith on others.
For a more positive forecast of future human society, take a look at another work of Huxley’s: “Island”.
Using the US Governements term, the ‘War on Terror’, does not make what they are doing over there anything less than a war on Iraq. Blanketing their acts in a catch-all figureheaded ideology is just an easy way for them to have the populace accept what they are doing. They were looking at ways to get the American people support an invadion of Iraq long before 9/11. Of course they will never win a “War on Terror”, they never intended to.
Exactly my point and exactly why Orwell is accurate.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree with our interpretations I guess! 🙂
Another way of thinking of this in current context is by bringing it down to a more local level. Don’t think of War in terms of country vs country, but in terms of interest groups. Liberals vs the “evangelica (sp?) right”, big business vs societal rights, the Government’s adjenda vs the will of the people, etc…
Orwell: The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
Re the U.S. War on Terror, unwinnable “war” is being waged by the outwardly pious to advance godless libertarianism, and is very much about change. Since the U.S. cannot afford continuous hot war, it will “end” in at least some sense. When it does, too many will ask “Where’s my son?” but many, many more will ask “Where’s my stuff?” Much will have changed. Already has.
The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.
Or perhaps “war” has evolved into a more perfect deception, now waged by the cynical, against the cynical, and at long last for the cynical.
LQ
Seems most posters have equated “war” with “American war against Iraq”. Perhaps what Orwell was talking about was not fighting itself, but our definition of war. Since 1984 was written, several wars have been declared by western society: war on poverty, war on drugs, war between the sexes, etc. None of these are physical wars, but do meet his criteria. This is a different definition of war compared to a century ago.
Shawn: Perhaps what Orwell was talking about was not fighting itself, but our definition of war. Since 1984 was written, several wars have been declared by western society: war on poverty, war on drugs, war between the sexes, etc. None of these are physical wars, but do meet his criteria. This is a different definition of war compared to a century ago.
It’s more than a “perhaps,” wouldn’t you say? Are Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania ever at war, or are there only war reports? At best, the official accounts reflect the needs of the party and not the actual state of peace or war at any given time. More likely public information is as controlled in Eastasia and Eurasia as in Oceania, and the leaders of each conspire in deception. Or (all together now) they are one.
War on Drugs, War on Terror … these aren’t “wars.” They’re political artifice; they can’t be won and, in time, nobody really expects that they can be. Skirmishes are attributed to them, but nothing decisive is possible. There’s no “war” there.
Orwell is of course talking about packaged, semantic deception run wild, with or without any actual shooting.
LQ
If America was really so Orwellian don’t you think The Thought Police would’ve got Michael Moore by now?
Question: I am a producer planning to present an Off-Broadway production of 1984 in NYC. It took 8 months to get the OK from the Orwell estate and I’m now in the process of courting investors. I’m putting together a web presentation that will pitch the show to investors. I would like a very short (maybe even one sentance) viewpoint on how 1984 supports the Conservative Right and another one supporting the Liberal left. I have already seen arguments with regard to these two viewpoints so I know there are people on both ends who feel 1984 supports their side.
Thanks,
John
Please explain what “Conservative Right” and “Liberal Left” mean in the context of your request. I don’t mean to be dodgy. These really aren’t monolithic nor necessarily polar terms.
In the U.S., for instance, there’s the left-right Dem/GOP scale of who’s likeliest to win an election, voting blocks being what they are right now. Fiscal conservatism is rightly claimed by some at each pole, including the one you’d otherwise never call conservative. Libertarians (bless their poor misguided souls) see two axes: conservative-liberal and authoritarian-permissive, which run perpendicular in an X-Y grid that folks can plot themselves on. Religion (and irreligion) figure as well. Does Jesus or some other chosen messiah preach redemption and forgiveness or obediance and an eye-for-an-eye, and what’s their relationship to conservatism? That’s changed lately, too.
I don’t think that Orwell or any of these questions can be sanely approached without defining terms a lot better. These days, our popular labels spur huge mobs of folks to shout at each other for thirty years, only to find later that they mostly agreed in the first place.
But if basic, classical liberalism is the idea that the only sovereign in human affairs is The Individual — that he is born with no master nor subordinate, and that nature is somehow distorted when he becomes one or the other — then Orwell makes no quarter with conservatism’s richest modern flavors.
Except the truest one, now straining to be heard: If Winston wins real freedom, he must remember the past and celebrate it. That’s where his freedom will have been born.
LQ
I live in the US. Maybe that’ll help you understand my point of reference. Most people I have spoken to feel that Orwell’s 1984 is very liberal. They feel that Orwell’s book shows us how the US government is starting to mirror many of the ideals of Big Brother. The enactment of the Patriot Act in the US has many democrats concerned about the path the US has taken, not only here but abroad.
I am pitching my play to potential investors. Most of the people I’ll be reaching out to are people in the entertainment business. Typically these people are more liberal. But, I have some potential investors who are extremely conservative. I still want to appeal to them. Therefore, I want to show both views. For example, I may wish to say… ” The Liberal Left feels that Orwell exemplifies their position by ….. (left viewpoint) …. while the conservative right believes … (right viewpoint).
I want to make sure that my sales pitch, and eventual advertising campaign, plays to the middle. This play needs to be seen by both sides. It has no value if I end up “Preaching to the Choir.”
Thanks,
John
John, I think you better do some more research on political ideologies and what they mean in the context of the “left vs. right” debate in American politics. And probably some more research into Orwell.
Don’t forget Thomas More’s quitessential utopian work “Utopia” (1516), and Samuel Butler’s odd “Erewhon” (1872).