1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: 1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

> >> 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.
>

So why are you critisizing the people who dare to dissent from the official
politicial line in times of war? If one is worried about things the
government does one is obliged to stand up and speak, whether it's war or
peace, unseemly or not. Because dissent is such a genuine feature of
democracy. One may be wrong in calling this "government action" one is
worried about fascism already but this doesn't matter because in times of
war there won't be too many people listening to you. I think this has a lot
to do with the original point.

> > 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.

I don't know where you get this impression from that I'm unwilling to see
differences which of course exist, only because I point to similarities
which are there too. Our disagreement seems to be about which part of this
binary opposition of "differences vs similarities" should be emphasized or
is more important.

I don't believe that "political equality and intellectual freedom" is
everyday reality for everybody in the US, Britain or Germany. Additionally I
don't believe that these basic democratic features can be maintained for the
majority without watching over them and rejecting every try to diminish
them.

> 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"?

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

The course of action? Both authors only give the same answer: write a book
or a grammar, preserve as much possible meanings of the word "freedom" as
possible I'd say. Bulgakow wrote "The Master and Margarita" in the
Stalin-era.

What has steadily, insidiously improved since then,
of course, making humanist arguments almost irrelevant,
is technology. (xvi)
(from Mutualcode's post)

I always got the impression from Pynchon's fiction that he's worried about
the possibility that along with technical developments things just might
happen, inevitably because the technique's there. It's an inclined plane.
Once started nobody will be able to stop real genetic engineering for
example. But it's too as if the Holocaust has happened & was made possible
not only because of the political anti-Semitism of Germany's "elite" and the
latent & open anti-Semitism of its population but because of the fact too
that Germany's bureaucracy was so efficiently organized. I'm reminded of the
Goldhagen-question why so many "simple" Germans, so many civil servants and
policemen, not outspoken nazis or anti-Semites before 1939, could be used so
easily for Holocaust-purposes. If people are doing things simply because
they have been told to do so, and because they always remain "ready to
justify any government action, whether right or wrong" --especially in times
of war-- they can be used for killing innocent civilians. Without people
like this the whole Saddam-regime wouldn't, no tyranny would be possible.

It's our duty to make sure that our liberal democracies never become like
Ozeania. It must be ok to say: "Hm, I'm not quite sure but isn't this
Guantanamo-thing without any legal control going a bit into the direction of
a concentration camp or Gulag, at least structurally?" Is it really not
wrong to end a harbour strike (and thus keep the wages low) by a
presidential decision because the government is preparing a war? Even if the
answer might be cleary "no" it must be allowed to ask. It must be ok to ask
if it's really necessary that civil servants are reading our e-mail exchange
here just because their search engines have delivered many interesting
matches given the topics we're talking about. So the fact that I'm still
here proves that I'm not that paranoid yet that I believe the critical mass
has already been reached.

> 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.
>

I repeat: Every government is under perpetual suspicion. Just because every
bureaucracy has this tendency to increase its control and because the
economical sphere will never stop trying to achieve influence on the major
decisions.

What makes me shake my head is the fact that this "vapourisation" has been
ok as long as Saddam was "our bad guy" -- we did not only stood by and
watched but delivered the weapons (US, Russia, France, Germany and others)
and, if necessary, the military intelligence to gas the Kurds, we stood by
and watched when the Shiite-uprising after the first Bush-war was brutally
repressed by Saddam. We have and we are still standing by in many more other
cases. As I said, let's take Mugabe and some others out of office and I'm
willing to begin to believe that 21th century wars are being fought for
freedom and not only out of economical reasons as usual.

Fact is that this war wasn't primarily lead to bring freedom to the Iraqis
but to get rid of Saddam and his possible WMD's and to get factual control
over the Iraqi oil production. It may have been really a main reason for
this war that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair want to install some kind of Arabian
democracy, but the term "Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' hasn't been proven true
yet.

As a German I really would like to believe that in Iraq might happen what
has happened here too, but I'm rather sceptical about this. In 1945 Germany
was surrounded by neighbours who would have had little objections to (by the
way with pretty good reasons given the hardships they had suffered) the plan
to turn Germany into a giant potato field. Iraq is surrounded by countries
whose governments are at best ambivalent. The population is so hostile
towards any US-presence in the region that this hardly can be compared to
Europe in 1945.

In Germany there had been a democratic constitution which could be improved
(Weimar). The role of the president has been weakened, given the electorial
system extremist parties have no chance, the basic federal system may not be
changed. Most civil servants who had survived went back to their jobs, the
civil services became the area where people who had suffered injuries that
kept them from doing their original jobs found appropriate office jobs.
There's much continuity. Post-war Germany was built upon a pre-war
democratic tradition. There's no such thing in Iraq. As long as any living
Iraqi can remember there has always been colonialism or tyranny.

> 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?
>

You don't want me to judge politicians by the way they look and their public
appearance, don't you? What do I then make of the military show on board of
the USS Lincoln some days ago?

There are more differences between "Big Brother" and Saddam than
similarities. When I think of the moustache(s) they all look like Chaplin.

If I follow Orwell "Big Brother" was only possible because the leaders
of the other two "zones" weren't any different. So Saddam has been at
best a "little big brother," given the speed of the victory the threat
couldn't have been that big.

What makes you sure that our elected leaders aren't only puppets of
the oligarchie?

Otto

> best
>