Eric Blair, known to his readers under the English pen name of George Orwell (1903-1950), was a man familiar with the roles of government. He served with the British government in Burma under the Indian Imperial Police. Returning to his European roots, Orwell also sided with the Spanish government as he fought with the Loyalists in their civil war. It wasn't until he wrote professionally as a political writer that Orwell's ideas of government were fully expressed. Orwell, in his political writings, was extremely contradictory. He was a critic of communism, yet he also considered himself a Socialist. He had hatred toward intellectuals, but he too was a political writer. It is only natural that a man of paradoxes would write of them. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell develops his Socialist Utopia as a paradoxical society that ultimately succeeds rather than flounders.
The society that Orwell creates is full of paradoxes that existed all the way up to its origins. The founders of the new lifestyle, known as the revolutionaries of the mid-twentieth century, leads the public to believe false intentions of revolt, as these purposes soon become exact opposite outcomes. The original designers seek to create an ideal social order out of England that is beneficial to all. Marin Kessler, a literary essayist, agrees that these 'utopians…had hoped to construct a perfect society in which men and women could enjoy that ultimate degree of happiness which, it was implied denied through the folly and wickedness of their present rulers'; (304). Besides being founded on the concept of a Utopia, the revolutionaries believe they could achieve their goals through Ingsoc, a variation on English socialism (named justly). The main concept of socialism is its stress on social equality, so much that the government distributes any possessions equally. In reality, this policy sought to destroy individual property, instead emphasizing collective property, owned by the government for the ultimate purpose of equality. Socialism is also often considered the politics of the working class and lower régime, since they actually benefited from it. Although the founders claim to create a socialist Utopia with its respective freedoms, the society of Oceania they create is exactly the opposite of their original principles. O'Brien, a major contributor to the government organization known as the Party, describes the contradictory characteristics of the world power of Oceania, 'Do you begin to see then, what kind of world we are creating?
In my opinion, the way Orwell wrote the book makes his world seem more like a dystopia than a utopia. The only community that I have seen that I would even consider calling a utopia is "Star Trek." I just can't see Oceania as being a perfect vision of happiness. Everyone is constantly being watched, people aren't allowed to have their own thoughts, their past history is entirely made up. I don't see how it could get much worse than that. Unless you are a member of the Inner Party. They can have their own thoughts and aren't watched all the time. The lowest class in Oceania, the Proles, can also have their own thoughts. But "Nobody cares what the proles say"(Orwell, p11). So their thoughts never really get heard or paid any attention to at least. The Inner Party basically runs things and they only do what they want. They have no reason to listen to the proles.
Orwell shows the Party has taken strict measures in order to maintain the established status quo that suppresses the majority of Oceania. They have shaped and constructed history so that children grow up as servants to the party. Propaganda stating how rich and prosperous Oceania is the news of the day even though real conditions show buildings are dilapidated and resources are sparse.
Rather, it contends that when government is unrestrained in the form of totalitarianism, as exemplified by the Party of Oceania, it can by nature exist only to serve itself. This argument serves as Orwell’s warning against the dangers of totalitarianism; it is so corrupting a force that it can hide behind claims of good intentions, but ultimately exists only to accumulate its own power. Furthermore, since a totalitarian drive for power constitutes a total control of its citizenry and a political structure that necessitates its existence, as shown by the military strategy of the Party, Orwell warns that once a truly totalitarian state is in place, there is no possible way to overthrow it or turn back from it. Ultimately, Orwell sees a government that is so distorted it has become completely self-serving as the largest threat, defining his view of totalitarianism and the themes of his
The point Orwell is trying to get across is that this mistreatment of the working class is not tolerable and must be disbanded (121). His solution to the problem is Socialism. He wants to show that a Socialist society can be implemented globally and benefit especially the lower classes. The problem he faces is that Socialism is quickly being phased out of the conversation and being replaced by the likes of Fascism (171). He is convinced that a Socialist movement is inevitable and a “historic necessity” (172). One problem he addresses is the correlation in the minds of the people to Socialism and Communism (175). While Communism is about control over the people, states Socialism is about justice, liberty, and receiving better wages for fewer hours while having no one bossing you around (176). Orwell even goes to the extent of saying that Fascism is a product of Communism (187). The biggest point Orwell attempts to give in my opinion is that there is no way the ideals he seeks (mentioned before as justice, liberty, etc.) cannot be achieved without a Socialist movements he calls “progress” (214). The “progress” he speaks of includes the de-centralization of power in the class system and the progression of machines and other means
). Did Orwell realise quite what he had done in Nineteen Eighty-Four? His post-publication glosses on its meaning reveal either blankness or bad faith even about its contemporary political implications. He insisted, for example, that his 'recent novel [was] NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter)'.(1) He may well not have intended it but that is what it can reasonably be taken to be. Warburg saw this immediately he had read the manuscript, and predicted that Nineteen Eighty-Four '[was] worth a cool million votes to the Conservative Party';(2) the literary editor of the Evening Standard 'sarcastically prescribed it as "required reading" for Labour Party M.P.s',(3) and, in the US, the Washington branch of the John Birch Society 'adopted "1984" as the last four digits of its telephone number'.(4) Moreover, Churchill had made the 'inseparably interwoven' relation between socialism and totalitarianism a plank in his 1945 election campaign(5) (and was not the protagonist of Nineteen Eighty-Four called Winston?). If, ten years earlier, an Orwell had written a futuristic fantasy in which Big Brother had had Hitler's features rather than Stalin's, would not the Left, whatever the writer's proclaimed political sympathies, have welcomed it as showing how capitalism, by its very nature, led to totalitarian fascism?
Howe, Tom. "George Orwell." British Writers Volume VII. Ed. Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Scribner, 1984. 273-287.
Many features of Orwell's imaginary super-state Oceania are ironic translations from Stalin’s Russia. In Oceania, the Party mainly uses technology as the chief ingredient to implement a psychological manipulation over society by controlling the information they receive. An example of this is the big screen television set up in every person’s home, and the poster all over the city. The giant “telescreen” in every citizen’s room blasts a constant stream of propaganda designed to make the failures and short successes of the Party appear to be glorious. In Winston Smith’s apartment, this “instrument” is always on spouting propaganda and constantly brain washing the peoples’ mind. In actual fact, “It could [only be] dimmed… there [is] no way of shutting it off”. In doing this, the Political Party is in complete control over the citizens’ mind, blasting what they want each individual to think (Orwell, 6). They psychologically stimulate each individuals mind, limiting their ability to think and have a mind of their own. In a similar way, Stalin’s created “The Poster” and The Pravda (the Russian newspaper controlled by the government during Joseph Stalin's regime) to twist and manipulate the minds of people into believing that what they were saying was absolutely right and truth. Using this power, Stalin and his regime would get people to do anything for them. (Basgen, 2010)
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
“One of the things Orwell bequeathed us was the adjective ‘Orwellian’…. It is a frightening word, generally applied to a society organized to crush and dehumanize the individual, sometimes signifying the alienation of that individual if he dares to rebel” (Lewis 13). George Orwell, the pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair, depicted the importance of the individual in society and the danger of too much community in his literature. Through his personal experiences, however, he explored the ideas of socialism and was torn between the individual and community ideals. In his literature and his past, Orwell spoke against movements that remove the individual, but still emphasized the importance of community. Thus, he advocated a need for balance between the two concepts.
War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. The party slogan of Ingsoc illustrates the sense of contradiction which characterizes the novel 1984. That the book was taken by many as a condemnation of socialism would have troubled Orwell greatly, had he lived to see the aftermath of his work. 1984 was a warning against totalitarianism and state sponsored brutality driven by excess technology. Socialist idealism in 1984 had turned to a total loss of individual freedom in exchange for false security and obedience to a totalitarian government, a dysutopia. 1984 was more than a simple warning to the socialists of Orwell's time. There are many complex philosophical issues buried deep within Orwell's satire and fiction. It was an essay on personal freedom, identity, language and thought, technology, religion, and the social class system. 1984 is more than a work of fiction. It is a prediction and a warning, clothed in the guise of science fiction, not so much about what could happen as it is about the implications of what has already happened. Rather than simply discoursing his views on the social and political issues of his day, Orwell chose to narrate them into a work of fiction which is timeless in interpretation. This is the reason that 1984 remains a relevant work of social and philosophical commentary more than fifty years after its completion.
In 1984, George Orwell explores the many facets of a negative utopia. Orwell seems to focus on the measures that the government takes to maintain a public of plebeians who have no personality or identity and believe that they are not unique individuals, but instead are part of a greater senseless mob of people who constantly work for a hostile and oppressive government which is involved in incessant wars. These people are taught to love. They then learn to fear their government because they believe all of the propaganda that is constantly instilled into their minds. They willing follow their government without contest for the duration of their meaningless lives. The government controls all forms of the media (thus denying the people the basic right of free speech) and use it to personify the government (known as “big brother”) .The government therefore seems omnipotent, or all knowing and always correct. Forecasts are changed from one week to the next always proving the government was correct. As was mentioned before, many of the rights that present day Westerners take for gran...
...art of the whole society and have greater power through the amount of support for the party, while those who believe otherwise are less powerful as their support is much less and limited. Orwell shows how those who do not conform will end up being taken down by those with the power and there is not much anyone could do about that. Those who believed in change and tried to change the society only ended up meeting failure as majority rules, those with more power will overpower the weak and succeed.
The Life and Works of George Orwell Eric Authur Blair, better known by his pen name, George Orwell, was born on January 23, 1903 at Motihari in Bengal. Orwell was brought up in what he considered a less fortunate family when it came to money. Only a few days after his only son's birth, Orwell's father, Richard Blair, retired from his position as a minor official in the Indian Customs with a small pension. The lack of wealth in his family growing up caused Orwell to see the world in different class distinctions. Everyone and everything Orwell faced in the earlier stages of his life, he immediately judged based on its place in the different financial levels of society.
George Orwell is considered to be one of the most creative and expressive political writers of the twentieth century, particularly for his views opposing communism and totalitarian regimes famously expressed in his novel, 1984. Orwell perceived communism as, “A new, dangerous form of totalitarianism, a powerful tool for controlling the masses.” Orwell’s hatred towards communism began with communist leader, Joseph Stalin whom he referred to as, “a bloody-minded master” (Rossi 1). Orwell’s views solidified during his participation in the Spanish Civil War; throughout his experience, Orwell was subject to communist propaganda, which led to his distrust of authority and established hatred of fascist and communist governments (Rossi 2). Orwell’s views, along with his participation ...
Based on the two essays, George Orwell is a vivid writer who uses a unique point of view and strong themes of pride and role playing to convey his messages. His writings are easy to pick out because of the strengths of these messages. Just like politicians in government, people with power turn corrupt to stay in power and keep their reputations. Anyone who takes on power must be prepared to live with the consequences of his actions. Orwell knows this challenge well and conveys this principle in his writing. After all, his narration is based on real life experiences and not fictional fantasies.