1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Monroe" <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
To: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: 1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"


> Coming soon to a theater of The War on Terrorism ((c)
> G.W. Bush) near you ...
>
> http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf
>
> --- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > To me, the real sticking point seems to be that this
> > "dissidence" is fine and dandy when the government
> > is democratic and liberal, as in the U.S., the
> > U.K., Western Europe etc, but under totalitarian
> > regimes like Stalin's, Hitler's, Saddam's etc no
> > such dissidence is possible (or even thinkable, in
> > Orwell's dystopia)....
>

Dissidence isn't only "fine and dandy" but a genuine element of modern
democracy. As you say it's this possibility to dissent that makes the
difference. To make sure that it stays that way it's important to keep a
critical distance, which is, I believe, something both authors we're talking
about have done.

The problem isn't if resistance is still possible but if it isn't part of
the oppressive programme already.

With increasing technical possibilities the possible control increases too.
As is said in "GR": "the chances for freedom are over for good" (539.13-16)
once a certain critical mass of control has been reached. Winston's job of
rewriting history would be much easier with today's modern equipment.

Every government is under perpetual suspicion.

Otto