1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[jbor]

>> 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).

on 4/5/03 12:05 AM, Otto wrote

> Dissidence isn't only "fine and dandy" but a genuine element of modern
> democracy. 

That's my point. The U.S. is a modern democracy, and the fact that
dissidence is allowed and possible (over the "Patriot Act" or whatever else)
is a defining feature of the democratic political system. It wasn't possible
in Saddam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, however, where
systems of oppression were institutionalised across the board, and that's
one of the defining features of totalitarianism.

> 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.

You don't seem willing to admit the differences between a liberal democracy,
where dissent is still possible and "political equality" and "intellectual
freedom" are a reality, and totalitarianism, where they are not. This is the
key distinction implicit in _1984_, and made overt in Orwell's non-fiction,
and it is also the key difference between Bush's America and Saddam's Iraq.
One of the questions posed by _1984_ is: what course of action is available
when you are born into a society where dissent and resistance are futile,
where "the chances for freedom" really are "over for good"? In Saddam's
Iraq, as with Hitler and Stalin, it wasn't just "suspicion", it was fact.
Once it is fact, what do you do? Stand by and watch, or take action? Those
Iraqis who tried to take action, who were dissident, were "vapourised". Over
a million of them. In 2003 this is not the case in America, or Britain, or
Germany.

Wasn't Saddam a "twentieth century tyrant" with a "goofy mustache"? Weren't
there posters and statues of him everywhere in Iraq? Didn't he fit the bill
of "Big Brother" more than Bush or Blair or any elected Western leader?

best

>> Winston Smith longs for an uprising of the proles, or
>> invasion and overthrow by Eastasia/Eurasia, which will end Big Brother's
>> oligarchy, but Orwell seems to imply that these are mere pipe dreams.
>> 
>> But it's a bit more complex than that. O'Brien quizzes Winston and Julia
>> about whether they are prepared to "give their lives ... commit murder ...
>> commit acts of sabotage which may cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent
>> people ... betray your country to foreign powers ... to cheat, to forge, to
>> blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children ... throw sulphuric acid in a
>> child's face" and so forth as members of "the Brotherhood". (Part 2, Ch. 8)
>> Later on in the interrogation suite O'Brien plays back the tape of this
>> conversation to demonstrate to Winston that these are exactly the same
>> things that the Party does, to show him that in order to overthrow Big
>> Brother he was willing to become just like Big Brother.
>> 
>> So, this is the question or aporia posed. In a situation where "dissidence"
>> is useless, how does one actually go about opposing or changing a
>> totalitarian regime like Hitler's or Stalin's or Saddam's Iraq - from within
>> or from outside - without resorting to the same sort of tactics which that
>> regime uses? Which is more "moral", to leave a cruel and inhuman regime be
>> or to take up arms to defeat it? I'm not sure that either Orwell or Pynchon
>> has an adequate answer to that question.



From: "Dave Monroe" <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>

> 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