Socialism the third most searched for term in 2008

I think that the implication is fairly simple: People are learning more about the world around them than before. I'm glad that someone is looking up communism and socialism, because I'm tired of those ideals being dragged through the mud whenever they are brought up. But then again there is a reason for it, the presidential campaigns and what not. But who cares what the reason is, I'm grateful that some people are reading books.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Is that an attack on Das Kapital, or are you not familiar with the work? Graphic novels have been writen on nonfiction many, many times in the past. It's not uncommon.

I was simultaneously not familiar with it and using your point that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a work of fiction.

And I didn't state that anyone who reads a Socialist or Marxist piece of literature is a Socialist or Marxist, however, percentages of Socialists and Marxists are probably higher among those who have read Socialist and Marxist literature.

A lot of people who support a theory don't bother either, however.

I don't really see Orwell writing anti-socialist literature, as he fought in the Spanish Civil-War with the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification, but I digress

He joined that side because the Independent Labour Party contingent fought with them, not because he in and of themselves supported them, but a digression as you said.

1984 (and Animal Farm, for that matter, however, that's far, far more obviously a criticism of Stalin specifically) was a criticism of Stalinist States, and centralized Nationalist Capitalism, (Nationalist Socialism) however, it also criticized the hierarchy not only present in Stalinism, but also in every State in existence today.

Which is why the explicit comparisons expressly makes reference to communism, not Stalinism. Granted, not socialism either (as it becomes clear after refreshing my memory using wiki that he was a Democratic Socialist, not a Liberal Democrat as I'd thought). He also did not criticize every government hierarchy, or you might as well be saying the man was an anarchist, and though he apparently said that a "true Socialist" is someone who wants to overthrow tyranny, it appears in "The Road To Wigan Pier" (which I've not read myself) that he acknowledges the need for government and criminal law.

But regardless of the extrinsic aids, I don't see anything intrinsic to 1984 that either supports socialism or supports anarchy (two themes I presume you'd love to read into it, being an anarcho-communist of sorts).

The pro-socialist writing in 1984 is far more subtle than its anti-hierarchy themes, however it's definitely there. The writings of Goldstein in 1984 mirror the writings of Trotsky's essays, for example. (and really, one of the major undercurrents of the novel is the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin.)

Goldstein wasn't played off as a heroic figure either. He wasn't intended as this figure for the reader to empathize with, and he doesn't really have any stance to support as far as I can remember. He explained the Party's stances in his book, he didn't expressily criticize them, and even if he did those criticisms were not pro-socialist in nature, simply anti-Party.

Oh, and according to Wiki, Orwell was never a Trotskyist. So yeah.

Or watching Star Wars and deciding that 'that Darth Sidious is a pretty cool guy'.

Not quite as much, at least considering that in the Judge Dredd comics, Judge Dredd is the "protagonist" even if he is not always a "hero" (those being the best stories, where he's an authoritarian who takes morally questionable actions and is completely unremorseful about it simply because they're legal and he is bestowed with that power under his discretion). In Brave New World, also, the people of that world are never played out to be villains as-such. Even Mustafa Mond is nothing more than a teacher giving an "I'm disappointed in you" speech.

That comparison is more accurate relating to Nineteen Eighty-Four, but well, the presentation of the story in Star Wars (romanticized space opera) and the presentation of Nineteen-Eighty Four (dystopian political sattire) is what creates the difference in reading.

That's like arguing that just because Survivor has a large viewership doesn't mean that a lot of people like Survivor. One could simply watch Survivor to know what it's about.

I hate the show myself, and I've seen a few episodes. Would I watch every season in their entirety to better understand the series? No. Would most people who dislike the series do this? Probably not.

That's not exactly a very good example, as Survivor is a reality-TV show and has no real message to understand. Now, consider a show with an actual story or message, such as a series of anime. Hell, even a single movie or videogame or yes, book, suffices to prove my point. I've watched a few series', watched a great many films, and played a great many games out of sheer interest. Though I could easily quit a certain distance in if I were so inclined, I do not, because I want to fully understand the work before I criticize it. The only example that comes to mind where I've not done so is Devil May Cry 2, and that's because it was just so bloody awful that whatever interest I had in it did not override the preservation of my mental integrity. Most of my friends are the same. Sometimes I'll even do so knowing I'll probably hate it, but consider it my duty to actually partake in it precisely so that I can accurately formulate an argument against it, and also because of the fact that I might change my mind about certain issues as a result.

Sure, a Capitalist may look up Socialism on a free web-dictionary to better understand what it's all about, but are they likely to purchase two pieces of Socialist/Communist literature? Is it possible? Of course. Will most Capitalists read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital? I doubt it.

I'd disagree on the grounds above. I'd wager a great many capitalists have read those two books precisely so that they could criticize them. I have no interest in either because I know precisely how Marx's mind works and therefore don't see the need to waste my time on them, but other capitalists will want to see precisely what Marx has to say before criticizing him.

Do you think majors in Marxist theory have increased by 700% this year? If they had, wouldn't that also create reason to believe an increase in support of Marxism?

Just because you study something doesn't always mean you support it wholeheartedly. Studying is simply to gain a greater understanding of something, which can be explained by interest, perhaps great interest, but not necessarily support.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

A lot of people who support a theory don't bother either, however.

Yes, however, that really has no bearing on my comment, or at least, I don't really see how it relates.

He joined that side because the Independent Labour Party contingent fought with them, not because he in and of themselves supported them, but a digression as you said.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Independent Labour Party (ILP) was a socialist political party in the United Kingdom.

Which is why the explicit comparisons expressly makes reference to communism, not Stalinism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this- you don't believe Orwell was criticizing Stalin's CCCP?

Granted, not socialism either (as it becomes clear after refreshing my memory using wiki that he was a Democratic Socialist, not a Liberal Democrat as I'd thought). He also did not criticize every government hierarchy, or you might as well be saying the man was an anarchist, and though he apparently said that a "true Socialist" is someone who wants to overthrow tyranny, it appears in "The Road To Wigan Pier" (which I've not read myself) that he acknowledges the need for government and criminal law.

Not an anarchist, rather, a democratic socialist. A lack of hierarchy does not denote a lack of law. It simply denotes that all people are given equal power.

But regardless of the extrinsic aids, I don't see anything intrinsic to 1984 that either supports socialism or supports anarchy (two themes I presume you'd love to read into it, being an anarcho-communist of sorts).

I wouldn't read a theme of anarchy into the novel, but rather, a theme of the power struggle of the working proletariat against the centralized Capitalism being practiced by Stalin- a pressing issue of the time.

You can look at Animal Farm as a skeleton for 1984- it deals with the same themes and the same basic story arc, but through a much more blunt and shallow means.

Goldstein wasn't played off as a heroic figure either. He wasn't intended as this figure for the reader to empathize with, and he doesn't really have any stance to support as far as I can remember.

He explained the Party's stances in his book, he didn't expressily criticize them, and even if he did those criticisms were not pro-socialist in nature, simply anti-Party.

Perhaps it's been a while since you've read the novel- Goldstein was a high ranking member of the upper party before he broke off from the upper party, wrote an essay criticizing the Upper party, and formed a following in the form of The Brotherhood. In response, the upper party generates anti-brotherhood propaganda, amongst which included grouping him as a supporter of the continent Oceania happened to be warring with at the time- claims we were given no reason to believe throughout the novel, and in fact, reason to believe they were fabricated by the upper party.

To put that in perspective, Trotsky was a high ranking member of the Bolshevik Communist Party until Stalin was voted in, after which he broke off from the Communist Party, wrote strong criticism of the Stalinist administration, as well as building a following in the form of Trotskyism, to which Stalin responded to by generating anti-Trotsky propaganda, amongst which included grouping him with the fascists the USSR were fighting at the time.

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

...But in each variant of Socialism that appeared from about 1900 onwards the aim of establishing liberty and equality was more and more openly abandoned. The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology....

...But the principal, underlying cause was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth....

...Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called 'abolition of private property' which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit...

...In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport - everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property....

Are you telling me this doesn't sound like Trotsky to you?

Oh, and according to Wiki, Orwell was never a Trotskyist. So yeah.

No, of course not. Trotsky was a Bolshevik; Orwell seemed pretty adamantly opposed to Bolshevikism, and the concept of a vanguard party all together. (Much like myself, coincidentally)

That's not exactly a very good example, as Survivor is a reality-TV show and has no real message to understand. Now, consider a show with an actual story or message, such as a series of anime. Hell, even a single movie or videogame or yes, book, suffices to prove my point. I've watched a few series', watched a great many films, and played a great many games out of sheer interest. Though I could easily quit a certain distance in if I were so inclined, I do not, because I want to fully understand the work before I criticize it. The only example that comes to mind where I've not done so is Devil May Cry 2, and that's because it was just so bloody awful that whatever interest I had in it did not override the preservation of my mental integrity. Most of my friends are the same. Sometimes I'll even do so knowing I'll probably hate it, but consider it my duty to actually partake in it precisely so that I can accurately formulate an argument against it, and also because of the fact that I might change my mind about certain issues as a result.

Would you say that a larger percentage of the people who have completed Devil May Cry 2 liked it, than the percentage of people who liked it who didn't finish it?

I'd disagree on the grounds above. I'd wager a great many capitalists have read those two books precisely so that they could criticize them. I have no interest in either because I know precisely how Marx's mind works and therefore don't see the need to waste my time on them, but other capitalists will want to see precisely what Marx has to say before criticizing him.

I'd argue that a very small amount of Capitalists have read the Communist Manifesto and its associated works considering the popularity of Capitalism today.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Yes, however, that really has no bearing on my comment, or at least, I don't really see how it relates.

Well you used the fact that Nineteen Eighty Four was a work of fiction to invalidate an earlier point, and I was just saying that if Das Kapital is also a work of fiction, then surely the same applies there. Granted you did make other points in conjunction with that, but you did list that, therefore you must believe that it was worth noting.


I'm aware that "Labour" are socialist (hell the best kind of Labour in Britain was Old Labour), but they're not Marxists, I was just pointing that out to put right any misconceptions you may have had that Orwell was a raving Marxist, being as Labour parties tend only to be lefty, not radically lefty.

I'm not sure what you mean by this- you don't believe Orwell was criticizing Stalin's CCCP?

Of course I do, but what I think is that he didn't see Stalin's CCCP as doing communism wrong - he thought that WAS communism. Much like everyone here you get in debates using Stalin's Russia as a point against Communism ignorantly. Which is why I point out that he didn't specifically attack Stalinism, but Communism.

Not an anarchist, rather, a democratic socialist. A lack of hierarchy does not denote a lack of law. It simply denotes that all people are given equal power.

In any system where there is law there must be those who create and enforce it, therefore if he supports a democratic government, surely he wasn't discontent with every system in the world at the time, because there were democracies around at the time.

I wouldn't read a theme of anarchy into the novel, but rather, a theme of the power struggle of the working proletariat against the centralized Capitalism being practiced by Stalin- a pressing issue of the time.

You can look at Animal Farm as a skeleton for 1984- it deals with the same themes and the same basic story arc, but through a much more blunt and shallow means.

Animal Farm is definitely a criticism of how "communist" nations ended up just being countries run the same as corporations on the world stage (and the way I see it it's also his criticism of communism altogether), but Nineteen Eighty-Four couldn't really be the same, because there's no one for the Party to trade with in that sense. They're not controlling the nation for the purpose of having them produce goods which they can deal to an outside source (unless you count the troops at war as that source but they're not buying those goods as such), they're controlling the nation for the sake of controlling the nation. One book demonstrates the flaws in a particular ideology and satirizes the history of that ideology, and the other is a direct attack on a particular ideology and saying "this is bad", as opposed to showing why it doesn't work (because the Party's only flaw was that they were not "benevolent"). One shows how power was abused as a means to an end, the other demonstrates how power can be an end in and of itself, and the abuse of that power is simply for the sake of exercising power rather than to achieve anything.

Perhaps it's been a while since you've read the novel- Goldstein was a high ranking member of the upper party before he broke off from the upper party, wrote an essay criticizing the Upper party, and formed a following in the form of The Brotherhood. In response, the upper party generates anti-brotherhood propaganda, amongst which included grouping him as a supporter of the continent Oceania happened to be warring with at the time- claims we were given no reason to believe throughout the novel, and in fact, reason to believe they were fabricated by the upper party.

To put that in perspective, Trotsky was a high ranking member of the Bolshevik Communist Party until Stalin was voted in, after which he broke off from the Communist Party, wrote strong criticism of the Stalinist administration, as well as building a following in the form of Trotskyism, to which Stalin responded to by generating anti-Trotsky propaganda, amongst which included grouping him with the fascists the USSR were fighting at the time.

Okay, but my dispute in that part wasn't that he wasn't a Trotsky-esque figure, but rather that he wasn't played off as a hero or as this figure of everything good and just in the world. Big Brother was a conglomeration of figures such as Hitler, Stalin, Lord Kitchener, and so on, whereas Emmanuel Goldstein was probably a Trotsky-esque figure, which I didn't dispute, but he's also a collection of a few other ideas, just like Big Brother. I mean for one thing he's quite clearly supposed to be Jewish, which stands in stark contrast to the Hitlery-ness of Big Brother, as well as probably a few other things I could probably point out given another refreshment of memory.

So yeah, while I don't doubt that he's supposed to be Trotsky, we know that Orwell did not support Trotskyists, and looking at the article for Emmanuel Goldstein there's a nice little quote from George Orwell.

Originally Posted by Orwell

"[T]he fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."

On top of that, in the same article I was reminded of the oath of loyalty Winston and Julia swore to O'Brien, and the article makes a good point - that should the Brotherhood ever have taken over, little would probably have changed, given their equally authoritarian nature in demanding absolute loyalty and obedience in overthrowing the Party.

Therefore the claim that Goldstein was meant to be Trotsky, and thus that Nineteen Eighty-Four was pro-socialism as a result of playing Goldstein against the antagonistic Party, doesn't follow. I don't read Nineteen Eighty-Four as being in favour of any particular ideology, simply a direct opposition to those ideologies which foster totalitarianism, i.e. communism (the way he saw it) and fascism (the way pretty much everyone sees it). At most, it was pro-democracy and pro-liberty - it didn't seem to take political sides on the X axis, only the Y axis (authoritarian versus libertarian).

Are you telling me this doesn't sound like Trotsky to you?

I'm not familiar with Trotsky's works, but again that's beside my original point.

No, of course not. Trotsky was a Bolshevik; Orwell seemed pretty adamantly opposed to Bolshevikism, and the concept of a vanguard party all together. (Much like myself, coincidentally)

So again, making the claim that Goldstein, in being a manifestation of Trotskyism, was a representation of a pro-socialistic theme in the book, doesn't really stand.

Would you say that a larger percentage of the people who have completed Devil May Cry 2 liked it, than the percentage of people who liked it who didn't finish it?

Going from common opinion? No.

I'd argue that a very small amount of Capitalists have read the Communist Manifesto and its associated works considering the popularity of Capitalism today.

I would vehemently disagree, because the only possible grounds for making that claim is basically you sitting there saying "Well if capitalists actually UNDERSTOOD communism they'd probably like it!" when this is quite clearly not always the case - understanding does not create support. Interest does not create support. The gathering of knowledge does not create the liking of that which you are attempting to know.

I'd argue that a very small amount of Capitalists have read the Communist Manifesto and its associated works considering the popularity of Capitalism today.

Not really. I had to read it as part of a school assignment for one of my AP classes. If thats typical of every high school advanced social studies class, then a good number of capitalist people have read it.

Anyway, my thoughts on the system described by the book were this. Pure Communism, as in type described by Marx, is impossible. It calls for a govenment to have no state, which is impossible. Without a state, there is no government. A land without a state is anarchy. Communism actually requires a state to function, without a state, there is nothing keeping people in line.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Not really. I had to read it as part of a school assignment for one of my AP classes. If thats typical of every high school advanced social studies class, then a good number of capitalist people have read it.

Anyway, my thoughts on the system described by the book were this. Pure Communism, as in type described by Marx, is impossible. It calls for a govenment to have no state, which is impossible. Without a state, there is no government. A land without a state is anarchy. Communism actually requires a state to function, without a state, there is nothing keeping people in line.

Replace every instance of "state" with "government" and every instance of "government" with "state" in that paragraph and you might have a point. Otherwise it's nonsense - a "state" does not keep people in line in and of itself, for example.

Sorry I've been gone for a couple days. I started writing up a response twice and I got sidetracked both times and lost them both times.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Well you used the fact that Nineteen Eighty Four was a work of fiction to invalidate an earlier point, and I was just saying that if Das Kapital is also a work of fiction, then surely the same applies there. Granted you did make other points in conjunction with that, but you did list that, therefore you must believe that it was worth noting.

I'm not sure if I remember what you're referring to, but whatever.

I'm aware that "Labour" are socialist (hell the best kind of Labour in Britain was Old Labour), but they're not Marxists, I was just pointing that out to put right any misconceptions you may have had that Orwell was a raving Marxist, being as Labour parties tend only to be lefty, not radically lefty.

I don't think I indicated he was a Marxist.

Of course I do, but what I think is that he didn't see Stalin's CCCP as doing communism wrong - he thought that WAS communism. Much like everyone here you get in debates using Stalin's Russia as a point against Communism ignorantly. Which is why I point out that he didn't specifically attack Stalinism, but Communism.

I really don't feel someone who fought with Marxists and then spent the rest of his life writing about politics would really make that mistake.

In any system where there is law there must be those who create and enforce it,

Yes, and if the power to create these laws is equally distributed among the entire population you have a purely democratic state which destroys the trustee/constitute hierarchy.

therefore if he supports a democratic government, surely he wasn't discontent with every system in the world at the time, because there were democracies around at the time.

The closest we've seen to a direct democracy is the Paris Commune of 1871, and even they had delegates.

Animal Farm is definitely a criticism of how "communist" nations ended up just being countries run the same as corporations on the world stage (and the way I see it it's also his criticism of communism altogether), but Nineteen Eighty-Four couldn't really be the same, because there's no one for the Party to trade with in that sense.

Perhaps you're forgetting Eurasia and Eastasia?

They're not controlling the nation for the purpose of having them produce goods which they can deal to an outside source (unless you count the troops at war as that source but they're not buying those goods as such), they're controlling the nation for the sake of controlling the nation. One book demonstrates the flaws in a particular ideology and satirizes the history of that ideology, and the other is a direct attack on a particular ideology and saying "this is bad", as opposed to showing why it doesn't work (because the Party's only flaw was that they were not "benevolent"). One shows how power was abused as a means to an end, the other demonstrates how power can be an end in and of itself, and the abuse of that power is simply for the sake of exercising power rather than to achieve anything.

I would disagree. It seems both 1984 and Animal Farm show the upper party holding control not at the though of reaching an end which benifitted their population, rather they showed the party holding power for the sake of holding power.

Okay, but my dispute in that part wasn't that he wasn't a Trotsky-esque figure, but rather that he wasn't played off as a hero or as this figure of everything good and just in the world. Big Brother was a conglomeration of figures such as Hitler, Stalin, Lord Kitchener, and so on,

I'd disagree- it seems big brother was specifically supposed to portray Stalin, while the Mussolini/Hitler's Fascism and the corporate dictatorship are vaguely represented by Eurasia and Eastasia.

whereas Emmanuel Goldstein was probably a Trotsky-esque figure, which I didn't dispute, but he's also a collection of a few other ideas, just like Big Brother. I mean for one thing he's quite clearly supposed to be Jewish, which stands in stark contrast to the Hitlery-ness of Big Brother, as well as probably a few other things I could probably point out given another refreshment of memory.

The fact that he was jewish was, I believe, suppost stand to show the absurd claims made by the party, and also by Stalin. (That Trotsky, a Communist is working with the German Nazis, the same would seem to be an absurd claim for a jew.)

So yeah, while I don't doubt that he's supposed to be Trotsky, we know that Orwell did not support Trotskyists, and looking at the article for Emmanuel Goldstein there's a nice little quote from George Orwell.

It's important to note that, even being a Socialist, Orwell has criticized Socialists and Socialism. It just seems he's a rather cynical person.

While I don't think he's a Trotskyist, what I believe he references here is that Trotsky is a Bolshevik, which seems to be his biggest complaint with Communism at the time. (Which was heavily comprised of Bolsheviks.) The question he seems to be asking is, even if Trotsky has a better message, should we trust someone who believes power should still be centralized, even if that power is popularly elected and temporary?

On top of that, in the same article I was reminded of the oath of loyalty Winston and Julia swore to O'Brien, and the article makes a good point - that should the Brotherhood ever have taken over, little would probably have changed, given their equally authoritarian nature in demanding absolute loyalty and obedience in overthrowing the Party.

Yes, and 1984 also brings up the question of whether or not Goldstein's essays and The Brotherhood are really just fronts controlled by the upper party, which again, references Trotsky's Bolshevikism.

Therefore the claim that Goldstein was meant to be Trotsky, and thus that Nineteen Eighty-Four was pro-socialism as a result of playing Goldstein against the antagonistic Party, doesn't follow. I don't read Nineteen Eighty-Four as being in favour of any particular ideology, simply a direct opposition to those ideologies which foster totalitarianism, i.e. communism (the way he saw it) and fascism (the way pretty much everyone sees it). At most, it was pro-democracy and pro-liberty - it didn't seem to take political sides on the X axis, only the Y axis (authoritarian versus libertarian).

It was a book with depth- Goldstein and The Brotherhood weren't two dimensional characters. While they seemed to fight the upper party, there was still that hanging question, "What if Goldstein just wants to replace the party?"

So again, making the claim that Goldstein, in being a manifestation of Trotskyism, was a representation of a pro-socialistic theme in the book, doesn't really stand.

Well, it seemed Orwell was agreeing with the ideology, but also offering some small critique- "Yes, Socialism is a great idea, BUT I would change this..." 'This' being the concept of a vanguard party.

Going from common opinion? No.

Wait, so you're saying that if even one person who liked it played it all the way through, there are at least two people who didn't finish it, and also liked it? Doesn't this, you know, break logic?

I would vehemently disagree, because the only possible grounds for making that claim is basically you sitting there saying "Well if capitalists actually UNDERSTOOD communism they'd probably like it!" when this is quite clearly not always the case - understanding does not create support. Interest does not create support. The gathering of knowledge does not create the liking of that which you are attempting to know.

The grounds for that claim is that most people are Capitalists and most people have not read the Communist Manifesto.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Not really. I had to read it as part of a school assignment for one of my AP classes. If thats typical of every high school advanced social studies class, then a good number of capitalist people have read it.

I'm glad they're having you read it, however, the A.P. Gov course at my high school does not do this. (Nor do we read The Wealth of the Nations)

Anyway, my thoughts on the system described by the book were this. Pure Communism, as in type described by Marx, is impossible. It calls for a govenment to have no state, which is impossible. Without a state, there is no government. A land without a state is anarchy. Communism actually requires a state to function, without a state, there is nothing keeping people in line.

Emphasis my own.

No, there is nothing keeping people in line. There would be a directly democratic system for setting standards, however, none of these would be enforced as law.

What makes you think, though, that people need to be 'kept in line'?

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Anyway, my thoughts on the system described by the book were this. Pure Communism, as in type described by Marx, is impossible. It calls for a govenment to have no state, which is impossible. Without a state, there is no government. A land without a state is anarchy. Communism actually requires a state to function, without a state, there is nothing keeping people in line.

Please brush up on your dialectics, comrade!

The state, in marxist analysis, is merely a tool used to further and regulate class antagonisms. When the bourgeoisie have been eliminated, the state is thereby rendered useless as there are no conflicting interests between classes; social and economic classes have been relegated to the dustbins of history by virtue of socialist society.

Every communist wants a classless and stateless society, the problem is how to get there.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I'm not sure if I remember what you're referring to, but whatever.

The bit where you said that 1984 wasn't comparable to Marx's books because it was fiction.

I don't think I indicated he was a Marxist.

You indicated he was "pro-socialist", and cited all kinds of indications that you thought Orwell was borderline communist.

I really don't feel someone who fought with Marxists and then spent the rest of his life writing about politics would really make that mistake.

Yet he used the word "communism" when referring to the USSR's regime under men like Stalin, not "Stalinism".

Plus sure he spent most of his life writing about politics but it's not like he editted 1984 in line with things he may later have realized or discovered, but that's irrelevant - he refers specifically to communists.

And as I already pointed out, the reason he fought with Marxists was because the Labour party was fighting with them, and he supported Labour - you make it sound like he was fighting AS a Marxist FOR Marxism alongside other Marxists.


So you have two possibilities - either he was as ignorant as I suggested, or he was actually attacking the idea behind communism in its actuality. I somehow doubt the latter given his later works, yes.

Yes, and if the power to create these laws is equally distributed among the entire population you have a purely democratic state which destroys the trustee/constitute hierarchy.

The closest we've seen to a direct democracy is the Paris Commune of 1871, and even they had delegates.

You make it sound like he's a literal "rule by the people" anarchist as opposed to "sensible democratic government". I somehow doubt that.

Perhaps you're forgetting Eurasia and Eastasia?

They weren't trading with them, and the implication is that they're all run by the same authority, all run in collaboration with each other from above secretly, or that those states don't even exist.

I would disagree. It seems both 1984 and Animal Farm show the upper party holding control not at the though of reaching an end which benifitted their population, rather they showed the party holding power for the sake of holding power.

1984's Party did, they liked to exercise control over their people (is the implication), whereas Animal Farm's pigs were selfish and essentially capitalist in nature, who liked having a whole farm (country) able to do their bidding so that they might reap the rewards on the larger scale.

I'd disagree- it seems big brother was specifically supposed to portray Stalin, while the Mussolini/Hitler's Fascism and the corporate dictatorship are vaguely represented by Eurasia and Eastasia.

And yet again, O'Brien specifically refers to the Nazi elements of the Party's regime. Hell, it's called Ingsoc - English Socialism, not that far a jump from National Socialism. Whereas Eurasia were governed by a Neo-Bolshevist regime (which is essentially the same as Ingsoc) and Eastasia were run by that "Termination of the Self" regime (again, essentially the same as Ingsoc). You can't really distinguish between the three because the three are exactly the same, but if you must try, then "Neo-Bolshevism" is about as far from Hitler and Mussolini's Fascism as you can get (in name alone, of course).

Plus, well, the poster of a mustachio'd man is reminiscent of Lord Kitchener, whereas the fact that he doesn't have a huge moustache like Stalin in most depictions or a small one like Hitler's means that Orwell was probably trying to reach a middle ground - after all, both the communist regimes of the time and the fascist regimes were both extreme ends of totalitarianism that didn't have that much distinguishing them, so it's easy to see why he'd be conglomerating the two - a general attack on totalitarianism in all its forms.

The fact that he was jewish was, I believe, suppost stand to show the absurd claims made by the party, and also by Stalin. (That Trotsky, a Communist is working with the German Nazis, the same would seem to be an absurd claim for a jew.)

I would say again that he is the Party's strawman political, and so represents what I claimed him to represent. The Party didn't say he was Jewish by faith, or by ethnicity, he is simply described as such in appearance by Winston, and I don't think that's unintentional. Although I think that's a perfectly valid point you make, it doesn't stand in contrast to mine - rather it could easily complement it.

It's important to note that, even being a Socialist, Orwell has criticized Socialists and Socialism. It just seems he's a rather cynical person.

Exactly, which rather supports my view that there are no positive political claims in 1984 on the X axis, only the Y.

While I don't think he's a Trotskyist, what I believe he references here is that Trotsky is a Bolshevik, which seems to be his biggest complaint with Communism at the time. (Which was heavily comprised of Bolsheviks.) The question he seems to be asking is, even if Trotsky has a better message, should we trust someone who believes power should still be centralized, even if that power is popularly elected and temporary?

...Nowhere in his quote is that indication given. That's the perspective an anarchist would have while trying to interpret Orwell as an anarchist, while there's no evidence to back that up.

Yes, and 1984 also brings up the question of whether or not Goldstein's essays and The Brotherhood are really just fronts controlled by the upper party, which again, references Trotsky's Bolshevikism.

It was a book with depth- Goldstein and The Brotherhood weren't two dimensional characters. While they seemed to fight the upper party, there was still that hanging question, "What if Goldstein just wants to replace the party?"

Again this just backs up my point - one can hardly use The Brotherhood or Goldstein as being manifestations of Orwell's views.

Well, it seemed Orwell was agreeing with the ideology, but also offering some small critique- "Yes, Socialism is a great idea, BUT I would change this..." 'This' being the concept of a vanguard party.

But there's nothing in the book to support that view, looking at intrinsic aids to interpretation, and looking at extrinsic aids to interpretation shows evidence doesn't provide any support either.

Wait, so you're saying that if even one person who liked it played it all the way through, there are at least two people who didn't finish it, and also liked it? Doesn't this, you know, break logic?

I think I misread your question, but what I was saying was that more people who had finished the game didn't like it than did.

The grounds for that claim is that most people are Capitalists and most people have not read the Communist Manifesto.

So yes, you are saying what I was reading you as saying - "If people READ the communist manifesto, they'd probably be communists!"

Most people are not fascists. Most people have not read Mein Kampf. Therefore if they read Mein Kampf, they might support fascism.

No, that's retarded.

What makes you think, though, that people need to be 'kept in line'?

Crime rates. *shrug*

And that's WITH a government. Imagine what it'd be like without.



I'm glad they're having you read it, however, the A.P. Gov course at my high school does not do this. (Nor do we read The Wealth of the Nations)



Emphasis my own.

No, there is nothing keeping people in line. There would be a directly democratic system for setting standards, however, none of these would be enforced as law.

What makes you think, though, that people need to be 'kept in line'?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

Every communist wants a classless and stateless society, the problem is how to get there.

The problem is that there is no way to get there.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The problem is that there is no way to get there.

Which is why authority is necessary even in a communist society.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Which is why authority is necessary even in a communist society.

Authority has always been necessary.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Authority has always been necessary.

Tell that to the anarcho-communists.

I can see this thread has degenerated into a stupid little circlejerking session between the two of you shortsighted lovers, but can we please get back to the schedule?

While something such as worldwide socialism would most definitely be tough, it doesn't mean it's impossible. During the early half of the 20th century the world was dangerously close to global revolution, and had the europeans managed to pull through there is a very good chance you'd be singing songs about the virtues of soviet democracy or l'internationale.

I'll agree that authority is needed(to an extent), but communism negates it once suppression has lost its usefulness. When there are no exploiters left there is no need for government.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I can see this thread has degenerated into a stupid little circlejerking session between the two of you shortsighted lovers, but can we please get back to the schedule?

If only the world would.

While something such as worldwide socialism would most definitely be tough, it doesn't mean it's impossible. During the early half of the 20th century the world was dangerously close to global revolution, and had the europeans managed to pull through there is a very good chance you'd be singing songs about the virtues of soviet democracy or l'internationale.

Propaganda is hardly a good thing.

I'll agree that authority is needed(to an extent), but communism negates it once suppression has lost its usefulness. When there are no exploiters left there is no need for government.

You'd need a Brave New World-esque conditioning process to remove greed and laziness from the human heart. Or you could understand that people will not accept such a system unless they are forced to.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

When there are no exploiters left there is no need for government.

Keep dreaming.

socialist policies are good for the proletariat in the short term(as in 10 years) but detrimental to us all in the long term.

the simple fact is that intelligence and the use of income are very much correlated and those with the lowest intellect should have the lowest impact on our use of resources since they are a burden on the rest of society.

face it, in the end you can't make that wondrous, cancer curring drug economically viable for the poor if it doesn't exist due to the fact that it was never developed.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

the simple fact is that intelligence and the use of income are very much correlated and those with the lowest intellect should have the lowest impact on our use of resources since they are a burden on the rest of society.

Under your logic Rupert Murdoch is one of the smartest men on the planet. You know, the guy who owns Fox News among others. Not all people who earn vast amounts of money spend it wisely. Or do you suggest perhaps that custom-tailored suits costing thousands of US dollars are an intelligent use of one's money?

face it, in the end you can't make that wondrous, cancer curring drug economically viable for the poor if it doesn't exist due to the fact that it was never developed.

That's a retarded suggestion. Pharmaceutical development, or indeed development in general, doesn't rely on capitalism. See: USSR's technology advancing, perhaps not quite as efficiently as under capitalism due to lack of competition, but still advancing.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

That's a retarded suggestion. Pharmaceutical development, or indeed development in general, doesn't rely on capitalism. See: USSR's technology advancing, perhaps not quite as efficiently as under capitalism due to lack of competition, but still advancing.

Not as efficient? As a deformed workers state the USSR moved from a 3rd world poverty state to a world power- advancing in decades what took the US centuries, all while dealing with multiple wars and an internal counter-revolutionary movement.

the simple fact is that intelligence and the use of income are very much correlated and those with the lowest intellect should have the lowest impact on our use of resources since they are a burden on the rest of society.

Intelligence and income have never been correlated in anyway. It's true that the number of college graduates are lower among the poorer populations, however, this makes perfect sense as it costs money to attend a university.

Rather, schooling and application of intelligence, as well as one's income have been directly correlated, however, this is in no way a measurement of one's ability to learn. If provisions were made to allow everyone the same educational opportunity, everyone would have the same opportunity to apply their intellect.

Furthermore, the occupations thought of as the most intellect intensive are often filled with members of the working proletariat- professors, scientists, artists, writers, etc... while a majority of the bourgeoisie are in management positions, or simply don't work for their wealth.

face it, in the end you can't make that wondrous, cancer curring drug economically viable for the poor if it doesn't exist due to the fact that it was never developed.

Then I suppose it's a good thing that the pharmacists who develop disease-curing drugs are members of the proletariat class, while those who own and manage the pharmaceutical industry and are currently refusing to release a potential cure for type A diabetes because they make so much money off of the insulin are members of the bourgeoisie apparatus.

Which is why authority is necessary even in a communist society.

This is like saying:

"Which is why yellow is necessary even in the color purple."

They are mutually exclusive. Authority can't be necessary in an ideology which states that authority isn't necessary.

You indicated he was "pro-socialist", and cited all kinds of indications that you thought Orwell was borderline communist.

Yes... and I think that still stands as... you know, he was a Socialist.

Yet he used the word "communism" when referring to the USSR's regime under men like Stalin, not "Stalinism".

Plus sure he spent most of his life writing about politics but it's not like he editted 1984 in line with things he may later have realized or discovered, but that's irrelevant - he refers specifically to communists.

And as I already pointed out, the reason he fought with Marxists was because the Labour party was fighting with them, and he supported Labour - you make it sound like he was fighting AS a Marxist FOR Marxism alongside other Marxists.


So you have two possibilities - either he was as ignorant as I suggested, or he was actually attacking the idea behind communism in its actuality. I somehow doubt the latter given his later works, yes.

Or he was referring to the Communist party, which was, at the time, prominently dominated by Stalinists.

You make it sound like he's a literal "rule by the people" anarchist as opposed to "sensible democratic government". I somehow doubt that.

As he claimed to be a Socialist, I tend to think he's a Socialist, yes. Not an Anarchist, no, but an advocate for pure democracy.

They weren't trading with them, and the implication is that they're all run by the same authority, all run in collaboration with each other from above secretly, or that those states don't even exist.

Yes, as Orwell saw the Capitalists, the Fascists, and the Stalinists all collaborating with each other to keep their places of power.

1984's Party did, they liked to exercise control over their people (is the implication), whereas Animal Farm's pigs were selfish and essentially capitalist in nature, who liked having a whole farm (country) able to do their bidding so that they might reap the rewards on the larger scale.

I don't really see the difference here.

And yet again, O'Brien specifically refers to the Nazi elements of the Party's regime. Hell, it's called Ingsoc - English Socialism, not that far a jump from National Socialism. Whereas Eurasia were governed by a Neo-Bolshevist regime (which is essentially the same as Ingsoc) and Eastasia were run by that "Termination of the Self" regime (again, essentially the same as Ingsoc). You can't really distinguish between the three because the three are exactly the same, but if you must try, then "Neo-Bolshevism" is about as far from Hitler and Mussolini's Fascism as you can get (in name alone, of course).

Plus, well, the poster of a mustachio'd man is reminiscent of Lord Kitchener, whereas the fact that he doesn't have a huge moustache like Stalin in most depictions or a small one like Hitler's means that Orwell was probably trying to reach a middle ground - after all, both the communist regimes of the time and the fascist regimes were both extreme ends of totalitarianism that didn't have that much distinguishing them, so it's easy to see why he'd be conglomerating the two - a general attack on totalitarianism in all its forms.

I think this is the point, no? That there is little difference between Stalinism, Fascism, and Corporatism? However, it seems apparent if only because of how well the cultures of Oceania reflect those of the USSR that Oceania is supposed to be a depiction of the USSR under Stalinist control.

I would say again that he is the Party's strawman political, and so represents what I claimed him to represent. The Party didn't say he was Jewish by faith, or by ethnicity, he is simply described as such in appearance by Winston, and I don't think that's unintentional. Although I think that's a perfectly valid point you make, it doesn't stand in contrast to mine - rather it could easily complement it.

The question is left open, whether or not he is a manifestation of the party, or whether control by The Brotherhood would be equally as despairing as control by The Party- a connection the the Bolshevikism shared by both Stalin and Trotsky even within their stark opposition.

Exactly, which rather supports my view that there are no positive political claims in 1984 on the X axis, only the Y.

Valid point.

...Nowhere in his quote is that indication given. That's the perspective an anarchist would have while trying to interpret Orwell as an anarchist, while there's no evidence to back that up.

....

Again this just backs up my point - one can hardly use The Brotherhood or Goldstein as being manifestations of Orwell's views.

It seems that The Brotherhood are given an image of generally offering a better arrangement than the party- it seems only to be the means through which they wish to create change which shine a negative light on the collective.

I think I misread your question, but what I was saying was that more people who had finished the game didn't like it than did.

However, more people who have played it have liked it than the people who haven't played it, yes?

So yes, you are saying what I was reading you as saying - "If people READ the communist manifesto, they'd probably be communists!"

Most people are not fascists. Most people have not read Mein Kampf. Therefore if they read Mein Kampf, they might support fascism.

No, that's retarded.

I'm not sure where you get this out of my statement- it wasn't a correlation in anyway, simply a statement of what is true.

Most people haven't read the Communist Manifesto.
Most people are Capitalist.
The percentage of people who are Communist among those who have read the Communist Manifesto is higher than the percentage of people who are Communist among those who have not read the Communist Manifesto.

Therefore, it is more likely for you to be a Communist if you have read the Communist Manifesto.

Therefore, one can assume that the increased sales of Communist paraphernalia (such as the Manifesto) points to an increase in Communists.

This isn't a valid comparison to Mein Kampf as I would be inclined to believe that the percentage of Nazis among those who have read Mein Kampf is less than the percentage of Nazis who have not read Mein Kampf.

Surely there are a great number of teens who walk around in their Wal-Mart sold Che t-shirts, however, in my experience they tend to not identify with Communism directly, where as those who vote Socialist Workers Party or Communist Party, or some other Communist political party and participate in pro-Communist protests tend to have read the Communist Manifesto and at least some other associated literature.

Crime rates. *shrug*

And that's WITH a government. Imagine what it'd be like without.

Most crimes are committed in opposition to an authority or in an ordeal regarding capital. As these crimes would no longer exist, most crime we deal with today would also no longer exist. Other crimes can be prevented with community developed propaganda, communal rehabilitation efforts, and, in extreme cases, exile by portions of or the entire community.

Of course, none of these actions would be regarded as crimes, rather, they would be regarded as actions which are detrimental to society. As few actions would remain both detrimental to society and beneficial to the individual the concept of 'crime' as it is now defined (a selfish act which is detrimental to society and acted out by an aware, sane human-being) will no longer be valid.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Under your logic Rupert Murdoch is one of the smartest men on the planet. You know, the guy who owns Fox News among others. Not all people who earn vast amounts of money spend it wisely. Or do you suggest perhaps that custom-tailored suits costing thousands of US dollars are an intelligent use of one's money?

well he still has enough money(resources) to keep on going... you know how many lottery winners use all their money(wealth) in an unsustainable manner and thus loose their wealth. same goes for celebrities, many end up with nothing and stay as nothing. that doesn't mean however that all people with money are intelligent, it does often mean that those who keep it, have others spend and invest it for them

That's a retarded suggestion. Pharmaceutical development, or indeed development in general, doesn't rely on capitalism. See: USSR's technology advancing, perhaps not quite as efficiently as under capitalism due to lack of competition, but still advancing.

tell that to former socialist Von Misses.