PDA

View Full Version : 1984: Chapter 4: The Process of Creating and Changing the Past and Loyalty



Meng Bomin
April 16th, 2004, 09:34 AM
After reading this Chapter 4 had some serious questions about maintaining loyalty among both the inner and outer party members. Although they had been brainwashed, I think that at least some of them would realize that they are supporting a lie. As long as the inner party members had no doubts regarding their activities, they would be fine, but if someone in the inner party were to realize that the party wasn't worth supporting, then they would be in trouble. This may be what happened with Emmanuel Goldstein, but then again Goldstein may not exist, or he may still be a member of the party (in charge of propaganda operations?). My question to you is: do you think such a party would be stable?

WatsonGlenn
April 16th, 2004, 10:49 AM
Such a party could be stable as long as there were no outside pressures.

For exampel the USSR would still exist if not for the pressure exerted by the US and European economies.

I had an 8th grade history teacher who once said the USSR would not be beaten by the US army. It would be beaten by Levis and Coca-cola. She did not know about cable and MTV.

Stablity comes from people who are satisfied. If disatisfaction is created then revolution follows.

Disatisfaction is not the same as despare. The people might be sad and even destiture but that alone will not create revolution unless there is a realization that others have it better and a possiblity that through violence they can improve their lot.

In Oceana the people are convinced that they have it about as good as it gets and no one has it any better. Additionally there is no chance to use violence to improve their lot.

FruitandNut
April 16th, 2004, 01:11 PM
I feel that the innate curiousity of the human mind may pervert Oceania's model of a totalitarian state. There is what psychologists call collective memory that we are born with, and that is still little understood. Human curiousity seeks alternative ways and explanations. Not all physical objects can be eradicated. Many objects and writings may be hidden away to be found later. Human curiousity dictates that at least a percentage will be studied before, perhaps being handed in. Often people would be fearful of handing things in - 'no smoke without fire.' Rumour gets spread about in the most unlikely of places.

The many books, TV series and Films inspired by Orwell's 1984 usually highlit indomitable souls who would not go easily into the Room 101s of totalitarianism and come out totally compliant. Underground movements would see that concepts of liberty and love survived, to unite and rise at any opportune moment. There is an inherent instability in such systems that needs a constant up grading of oppression and repression. That instability is human nature. We are irrational by nature and fit uneasily into any kind of 'rational' world.

WatsonGlenn
April 16th, 2004, 01:41 PM
I guess it depends on how you define 'stable.' Would a society or culture that lasted a thousand years be called stable? Is the USA stable? Was the Dark Ages in Europe a stable period? Is Islam stable?

Stabilty often goes hand in hand with moribound and both words describe Oceana.

Meng Bomin
April 16th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Stablity comes from people who are satisfied. If disatisfaction is created then revolution follows.I suppose that you are right, but I just feel that there is a definite possiblity of upheaval if one of the inner party members was to decide to rebel due to some moral epiphany. Of course, Big Brother must squelch the sense of traditional morality and also remove nonconformists and this was probably done during the great purges. That would definitely reduce the likelyhood of such a situation.

WatsonGlenn
April 16th, 2004, 07:52 PM
I believe the moral epiphany of one man would not be enough. In order for revolution to happen there must be a critical mass of men who have reached the point where they think they can win.

George Washington is not enough by himself. You need Jefferson and Franklin and Adams and all the rest. It does not have to be a majority or the population or even a large minority but it has to be a significant number.

The Bolshavik Revolution was pushed forward by a relatively small cadre but it was more than just Lenin and Trotsky.

Meng Bomin
April 16th, 2004, 09:41 PM
I believe the moral epiphany of one man would not be enough. In order for revolution to happen there must be a critical mass of men who have reached the point where they think they can win.It would depend on who that man (or woman) was. If they were an especially highranking official, they may be able to stir up discontent. The moral epiphany of one person can start a chain reaction. There are many conditions at work, however, but I think that such a situation would be inevitable. But that may not come for a while.

FruitandNut
April 17th, 2004, 05:15 AM
I agree with you, Neverending. 'Cometh the moment, cometh the man(sic)'. Gossip - the human need to talk and communicate would eventually create some sort of mass epiphany; in Oceania and the other 'continents' as well.

WatsonGlenn
April 17th, 2004, 01:04 PM
It would depend on who that man (or woman) was. If they were an especially highranking official, they may be able to stir up discontent. The moral epiphany of one person can start a chain reaction. There are many conditions at work, however, but I think that such a situation would be inevitable. But that may not come for a while.


An historical chain reaction like a revolution is caused by major historical events not individuals. Still I agree that eventually any system based on force will fail.

Meng Bomin
April 17th, 2004, 02:42 PM
An historical chain reaction like a revolution is caused by major historical events not individuals.Yes, but an individual with enough influence could cause an event to spark a revolution.

WatsonGlenn
April 17th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Yes, but an individual with enough influence could cause an event to spark a revolution.

For any individual you can name whom you think began a movement on his own I can point to a natural progression of events that actually led to the movement. "No man is a island." The one exception is Jesus and maybe Mohammed.

Meng Bomin
April 17th, 2004, 08:20 PM
For any individual you can name whom you think began a movement on his own I can point to a natural progression of events that actually led to the movement. "No man is a island." The one exception is Jesus and maybe Mohammed.There already is a progression of events, half the population of Oceania is shoeless. I think that if someone were to point that out from high up, there would be an uprising. Of course, the person would have to be able to broadcast his message, something that would be incredably difficult to do.

FruitandNut
April 18th, 2004, 02:31 AM
Yes, in a society that is supposed to be level and stable, the mere fact that half have shoes and half don't would start off questions and unease with the status quo.

WatsonGlenn
April 18th, 2004, 07:41 AM
Yes, in a society that is supposed to be level and stable, the mere fact that half have shoes and half don't would start off questions and unease with the status quo.

Thats true but the second thing a revolution needs is the idea that the rebellion will succeed. The genious of big brother is that he has stamped out all hope of a rebellion succeeding.

Meng Bomin
April 18th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Thats true but the second thing a revolution needs is the idea that the rebellion will succeed. The genious of big brother is that he has stamped out all hope of a rebellion succeeding. Which is why the rebellion would have to start from high up.

chadn737
April 18th, 2004, 03:08 PM
Thats true but the second thing a revolution needs is the idea that the rebellion will succeed. The genious of big brother is that he has stamped out all hope of a rebellion succeeding.

Does it really need this? Isnt pure anger simply enough to spark a rebellion?

WatsonGlenn
April 18th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Does it really need this? Isnt pure anger simply enough to spark a rebellion?

Not a widespread one IMO.

FruitandNut
April 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Yes, even the French Revolution had middle class in the form of lawers, journalists etc. and a small number of aristocracy to lead and organise. Real peasant revolts tend to be beaten, as in the British experience. They tend to lack cohesion and planning.

Linz
April 20th, 2004, 05:56 AM
Although they had been brainwashed, I think that at least some of them would realize that they are supporting a lie.

My question to you is: do you think such a party would be stable?
The problem arises with those who support the lies, they want to believe, they themselves are part of the problem and make up the most dangerous kind of people.

IMO I think this party could be stable if they "properly" train the future generations to believe in the party. Also keeping things confusing where as no one person has too much knowledge or power other than the party leaders. Changing history to positively affect their current positions.
Everyone does their job, but has no idea what anyone else is really doing and are not at liberty to speak of it.
There was no way of knowing whose job would finally be adopted, but he felt a profound conviction that it would be his own. Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact....... once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.

A revolution would require collaborating which the party strictly forbids... how are these people to come together and discuss the injustice or means of staging a revolt?

Haven't been posting much as I read WAY ahead and don't want to give anything away... :( Sorry

KevinBrowning
May 6th, 2004, 03:13 PM
The problem arises with those who support the lies, they want to believe, they themselves are part of the problem and make up the most dangerous kind of people.

IMO I think this party could be stable if they "properly" train the future generations to believe in the party. Also keeping things confusing where as no one person has too much knowledge or power other than the party leaders. Changing history to positively affect their current positions.
Everyone does their job, but has no idea what anyone else is really doing and are not at liberty to speak of it.

A revolution would require collaborating which the party strictly forbids... how are these people to come together and discuss the injustice or means of staging a revolt?

Haven't been posting much as I read WAY ahead and don't want to give anything away... :( Sorry
It is alright, I understand how it is hard not to read ahead sometimes, one gets so interested.