Thoughts on 1984 and Orwell in general?

[Anonymous No.11126396]

Currently reading 1984, about halfway through. I feel like he came to 2018 and wrote this book and then time-traveled back to the 40s. I'm surprised how much I like it; I'm usually underwhelmed by modern "classics"

[Anonymous No.11126399]

He's a middle-school-tier hack.

[Anonymous No.11126422]

>>11126399
Why though

[Anonymous No.11126424]

Winston dies of a shot in the back of his head.

You are welcome.

[Anonymous No.11126443]

>>11126424
I don't really care about spoilers. Thanks though

[Anonymous No.11126531]

bump

[Anonymous No.11126584]

>>11126443
lmao this is absolutely not what happens

[Alternative simple apps No.11126932]

>>11126396
I've read the 1st part. The only thing i didn't like was how it reminds me of my ex. I gave her a copy of this book a year ago. I think I can never get the chance of meeting someone like her.

[Anonymous No.11126940]

>>11126396
>I feel like he came to 2018 and wrote this book and then time-traveled back to the 40s.
>I'm surprised how much I like it; I'm usually underwhelmed by modern "classics"

[Anonymous No.11126951]

>>11126396
Just read the entirety of Animal Farm today, what a coincidence there is a thread about Orwell. Question, is the book for pseudo-/int/'s to feel smart or does is it an actual allegorical masterpiece?

[Anonymous No.11126969]

>>11126951
Pseudo-/int/s hate this book, its an allegorical masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.11126979]

>>11126940
that's what I said, yeah

[Anonymous No.11127041]

wrong 'dystopian' novel you reddit mouth breather

[Anonymous No.11127056]

Why didn't Winston ask Mr Charrington about life before the Revolution? He'd be the perfect person to ask (at least, before Winston knows he's a spy).

[Anonymous No.11127084]

>>11127041
Who are you responding to

[Anonymous No.11127121]

>>11126951
What a coincidence anon, i just read animal farm yesterday. What did you think of it?

[Anonymous No.11127199]

>>11127056
He did ask him

[Anonymous No.11127221]

Why are there a billion posts for some pseud meme "philosopher" but none for books which are actually good and stand the test of time?

[Anonymous No.11127381]

>>11127199
No he just asks about antiques and churches and a nursery rhyme. I'm talking more about the stuff he asks the drunk prole at the bar, about the political and economic conditions of the time.

[Anonymous No.11127397]

>>11127381
You are right, i got confused

[Anonymous No.11127410]

>>11127381
That old prole with the white mustache just want a goddamned pint, none of the half-liter, liter shits

[Anonymous No.11127635]

>>11127121
As a fervent anti-communist, I thought it was interesting and got a few laughs. Wish they would teach this in school, many kids could see the dark side of Marxism for the first time. I wish I had read it back then...

[Anonymous No.11127670]

>>11126584
it happens off book

[Anonymous No.11127694]

>>11127635
>fiction book is indicative of what socialist countries were like
For fuck sake m8.
Also, taking orwell as an example it's just a bastard approach. The rest of this guy's bibliography it's anti capitalist

[Anonymous No.11127699]

Orwell is fun, easy and didactic. I wouldn’t form any political opinion after him though.

[Anonymous No.11127796]

>>11127670
lol wot
>>11127635
I thought this too. They should teach more of this and less bullshit like Toni Morrison and To Kill a Mockingbird. I'd even put this over Catcher in the Rye. It should be an essential high school read.

[Anonymous No.11127913]

>>11127694
>Also, taking orwell as an example it's just a bastard approach. The rest of this guy's bibliography it's anti capitalist

there's no contradiction

[Anonymous No.11128276]

>>11127635
They do teach in school. Also, a book about talking animals is not a coherent criticism or marxism. Orwell was a socialist and its a warning about statist communism.

[Anonymous No.11128355]

>>11128276
>statist communism
As opposed to what? That's redundant, there's no such thing as stateless communism. Even anarcho-communism, so-called, is statism, just on a much larger or smaller scale, depending on which version of it is in play (e.g., voluntaryism, communitarianism, full-scale international communism - a wet dream of a certain tribe of oligarchical tyrants with extreme in-group preferences).

[Anonymous No.11128367]

>>11128355
>there's no such thing as stateless communism
That was literally Marx's whole theory, eventually history will reach a post-state post-class society where each person is able to maximize their freedom and ownership over their labor and its products. You are obviously not familiar with dialectical materialism.

[Anonymous No.11128395]

>>11127635
>As a fervent anti-communist
I wonder how the fuck people manage to have strong opinions about things which they know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.11128415]

>>11128367
I am familiar with it, I've read all of Capital V. 1 and many of his and his followers' other works. But ultimately it will result in a form of state control in order to make sure that some one person or group of people form an intentional community to separate from the unsuccessful and mediocre communist state where there is no innovation due to no profit motive.

Also, communism is used for a specific ethnic group to fleece a country once they centralize all of the power and seize the means of production. Once it is then in their power they keep it for themselves and encourage free trade and libertarianism.

On one side of the kosher sandwich you have Marx, Goldman, Trotsky, on the other you have Rand, von Mises, Friedman.

[Anonymous No.11128421]

>>11128415
>But ultimately it will result in a form of state control in order to make sure that some one person or group of people form
don't form**

[Anonymous No.11128832]

>>11126396
1984 is one of my fav books but orwell was a crypto-liberal faggot

[Anonymous No.11128847]

>>11126396
The part about state sanctioned cosmology is especially relevant.

[Anonymous No.11128852]

>>11128367
>socialism in one country
>t.trot
so marxism-leninism isn't real marxism huh

[Anonymous No.11128866]

>>11128415
it's been proven that marx can be non-kosher as well though

[Anonymous No.11128872]

>>11128852
I was talking about Marx's theory of Communism, not Marxism. I'll give you three guesses on the author of this quote:
>If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist

[Anonymous No.11128876]

>>11126396
Why are there cats on that cover. I’ve read it a couple times and I don’t remember any cats. Maybe I’ve forgotten, it has been a few years.

[Anonymous No.11128879]

>>11126584
Wait if this isn’t what happens why do I remember it that way too?

[Anonymous No.11128894]

>>11128876
Curiosity kills the cat.

[Anonymous No.11128895]

>>11126396
I am not entirely convinced that Big Brother did something wrong and Winston wasn't the bad guy who got what he deserved.

>I feel like he came to 2018 and wrote this book and then time-traveled back to the 40s.
Why? Authoritarianism is practically dead.

[Anonymous No.11128914]

>>11126396
I think it's a pretty good book. It's commentary on the reduction of language especially is pretty interesting. I wouldn't really call it visiinary or prphetic, though; Orwell was inspired by the USSR when writing it, after all.

Also, has anyone here read the paper Pinecone wrote for the book? He basically argues that the Appendix at the end of the book is supposed to let us know that Big Brother's regime eventually died.

[Anonymous No.11128919]

>>11126396
it's great as a story, it broke a little bit of ground as far as political discourse, it influenced a lot of people, and it had interesting things to say about language (though they're better said elsewhere), but as political commentary it fucking sucks
it has no subtlety or nuance or mystery (beyond the details of the inevitable unhappy ending) or anything like that that would lend the politics any hint of realism
INGSOC is lawful evil hardasses literally just power-tripping for the sake of it
they fucking directly state inherent contradictions as their propaganda, they retroactively change news stories while they're happening, they engage in perfect observation somehow, they keep up a perpetual war somehow, they don't even have the upper party members living in that much comfort or using more advanced shit
the whole book is an outside look at a shitty /d/ post about globalized fetishes where the poster just went "uh everyone has to submit all the time, if they don't they're tortured, also there's a bunch of fucked up mind games I guess"

[Anonymous No.11128920]

>>11128866
Still a failure though

[Anonymous No.11128929]

>>11128355
holy shit you're not clever, please just say it's the Jews so we know sooner that you're a fag

[Anonymous No.11128931]

>>11128895
>>I feel like he came to 2018 and wrote this book and then time-traveled back to the 40s.
>Why? Authoritarianism is practically dead.
I guess it's being aware of reality and being surrounded by liberals in an urban setting where if you reveal you voted for Trump or are pro-white in any way you will have your life ruined, more or less. If you're not in that situation it wouldn't make much sense. But I understood what Winston felt when he made eye contact with O'Brien thinking that maybe he was one of the few unorthodox ones. Also, the Two Minutes Hate is basically any time a normie has politics brought up they froth at the mouth and scream about Bonald Dlumpf. The rewriting of history, media narratives, etc. are also relevant.

[Anonymous No.11128936]

>>11128415
you're conflating the explanation with a defense, and the practice and consequences with the theory and message
that poster is saying that the message of the book is that communism should not be focused on the state but rather on the people

[Anonymous No.11128943]

>>11126396
>I feel like he came to 2018 and wrote this book and then time-traveled back to the 40s
what are you on about you retard ?

[Anonymous No.11128948]

>>11128929
No one's trying to be clever you retard

[Anonymous No.11128954]

>>11127635
What a dipshit

[Anonymous No.11128963]

>>11128936
So the people will not form a statist institution? Marx is opposed to the anarchist utopians like Bakunin, and specifically calls them out. To think that a communist revolution or dialectical materialism will result in anything but a gigantic state with centralized power is just wrong. What other possible alternative would an implementation of his theory have?
>>11128943
Fuck off, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11128976]

>>11126951
No it's has to be taken literally, Orwell just recorded what he saw at the local farm.

[Anonymous No.11128979]

>>11128931
>I guess it's being aware of reality and being surrounded by liberals in an urban setting where if you reveal you voted for Trump or are pro-white in any way you will have your life ruined, more or less.
That is a very interesting reading, that I didn't even think about, but it makes some sense.

Personally 4chan manages to take the pain of my unorthodox opinions away, as I can be sure that I am not alone with them.

[Anonymous No.11129005]

>>11126396
1984 good Brave New World Better

[Anonymous No.11129011]

>>11126396
Love his work, I appreciated where he comes from and the context so much more after reading "Why I Write"

It was interesting to see his bias and prejudice, while still making great creative points

[Anonymous No.11129395]

>>11126396
Lazy b8.

[Anonymous No.11129400]

>>11128367
Dialectical Materialism has been utter horseshit since the beginning.

[Anonymous No.11129411]

>>11129395
It wasn't bait though

[Anonymous No.11129539]

>>11127381
Is there any logical reason as to why he didn’t ask anything? It honestly confused me. It couldn’t be that it would devalue in anyway. Mr charrington could’ve just fed winston what he wanted to hear.

[Anonymous No.11129645]

>>11129005
I’m about to start the third chapter of brave new world and I have no idea what’s going on.

[Anonymous No.11130228]

>>11127635
ur gay

[Anonymous No.11130515]

>>11129539
From a Doylist perspective it undermines the story if Winston has a reliable source of information about the past; perhaps Orwell couldn't see a way to make it work and just ignored it and hoped the reader wouldn't notice. If Charrington told him the truth it would prematurely resolve a lot of the tension (and make the Goldstein book subplot less relevant); on the other hand if Charrington lied that would immediately tip off the reader that Winston was doomed.

I don't begrudge him for it though, it's difficult to write a character such that he's similar enough to us that we can empathise with him, but different enough that his situation is tragic.

[Anonymous No.11130608]

>>11127635
Anon you responded to here. I'm also anti-commie and thought it was a nice read although its worth noting orwell was a socialist and a troskyite (?) and the book is a criticism of revolution and its tendency to simply create a new ruling class, hence, we are all equal but some are more equal than others. i would've like to have seen some more nuance in the way the characters perceived their piggy overlords and thought Boxers character was brought to an unsatisfying end, but thats just what I would've liked and idk if it would've made the book better. Still a nice read though. Sorry for the blog but i just wanted to talk about the book.

[Anonymous No.11130658]

>>11128876
They are rats, Winston's greatest fear.

[Anonymous No.11130671]

>>11128895
>Winston deserved to be starved, beaten mercilessly, tortured, and mind-fucked for having sex and reading a book

Pls explain

[Anonymous No.11130679]

>>11128914
>has anyone here read the paper Pinecone wrote for the book? He basically argues that the Appendix at the end of the book is supposed to let us know that Big Brother's regime eventually died.

I haven't read it, but I do agree with it to an extent. The appendix is written almost as a piece of historiography from the point of view of someone outside of the regime. There are several subtle language uses that suggest that Newspeak failed, as did Oceania/Ingsoc.

[Anonymous No.11130712]

link to the pinecone paper?

[Anonymous No.11130836]

>>11130671
>for having sex and reading a book
That isn't really what he did, he did something significantly worse, he committed thought crime against his society, he is a traitor.

Some background thoughts on this, Imagine what is "most free" you could possibly be?
It seems pretty obvious that the answer to that might be "I can do everything I could possibly want to do".
And freedom is obviously a very important factor in happiness, no slave will ever experience genuine self fulfillment.

Now, what Implications does "I can do everything I could possibly want to do" have?
Firstly, it is obviously bad if you are restricted from doing something, a restriction on e.g. what foods you want to eat but weren't allowed to, that certainly would decrease your freedom.
But there is another implication here, how you can also become "more free" and that is by removing things you could want to do?
Imagine this scenario, every day on the table you had to chose between a food you really liked and a food you really didn't like, would you be less free if the food you would never chose would disappear?
Going from the the definition of what the "most free you could possibly be", this is certainly not the case, nothing was restricted to you that you actually wanted.
But what if there was a problem with the supply for the food you liked? Not being able to eat that certainly would make you less free.

Now lets apply this concept to society as a whole, supposing you could shape human psychology to your liking, what if you could stop all humans from committing crimes?
You wouldn't need police men to patrol the streets and you wouldn't even need laws anymore, everyone could be allowed to do anything he wanted, being completely and utterly free.
What if you went further and applied this to all other aspects of life?
Make all humans like one basic, nutritious well rounded, healthy food that is easy to supply, now everyone can eat his favorite food, every single day, being as FREE TO CHOOSE as he never was before.

You can see how society can be freed further and further as you apply more and more thought control, but that is exactly what big brother does, thought control, to free the citizens.
Now Winston is the selfish guy who threatens that system, what if your freest society, would have one criminal, going around and commit crimes?
The whole system would break apart as people realized that something is deeply wrong, so big brother, our liberator, has to take measures to protect freedom from people like Winston.

[Anonymous No.11130956]

>>11130836
That’s definitely an interesting take on the issue of freedom and authoritarianism, but there’s something deeply inhuman about it I think. All of humanity mindlessly making the sameness choices destroys the human spirit of innovation and triumph over struggle and it takes away diversity, which makes the world an interesting place. And I think it’s a bit disingenuous or at least mistaken to claim that being forcibly conditioned into wanting something is the same thing as making a free choice. It’s true that after the conditioning has taken place, assuming it was successful, I make the free choice to think positive things about Big Brother and Ingsoc, but from a broader perspective, I still have the yoke of mind control/threat of punishment guiding me into those feelings. It’s not truly a free decision in the same way that a horse (willingly) pulling a cart down a familiar path is not truly deciding of his own accord to do so. He’s been trained that way.

Even if you are right and the society Ingsoc is trying to create would be a dystopia, it’s clear they aren’t succeeding at creating it. There will always be dissatisfied people like Winston or even people like Parsons who, despite an ostensible loyalty to the party, murmur unconscious dissent in their unguarded moments. I don’t think umanity as a whole can be pommeled into unquestioning submission like you and Big Brother envision.

Sorry for any typos, I’m unabashedly phoneposting.

[Anonymous No.11131063]

>>11130956
>but there’s something deeply inhuman about it I think
Yes, absolutely. I would compare it to a "happiness drug" which makes you instantly and permanently happy for the rest of your life.
It would be hard to argue that this is "genuine happiness" and more then just an illusion.
The freedom granted here is similar in a way, this freedom isn't earned, it is just given in over abundance, which makes it practically worthless.

I just thought it was an interesting Idea to offer a defense of big brother, in a way which makes them actually the defenders of freedom (in a twisted sense).

>All of humanity mindlessly making the sameness choices destroys the human spirit of innovation and triumph over struggle and it takes away diversity, which makes the world an interesting place.
Which is also described in the book, big brother couldn't possibly allow any kind of innovation that would be the surest way to end their system.
The world becomes a very monotonous and stale place and everything that could even be remotely called "good" about humanity would vanish, from art to literature to science.
I would call that a pretty heavy price to pay for "total" freedom.

>And I think it’s a bit disingenuous or at least mistaken to claim that being forcibly conditioned into wanting something is the same thing as making a free choice.
That is a very interesting point, I can not imagine the transition having being anything but bloody and very non-free.
The same would go for education, I doubt making sure that the next generation has no free thinkers inside of it would be easy in the slightest.

In conclusion, I thought this was an interesting angle on the book, although I wouldn't seriously advocate for establishing the anarcho-totalitarian though control state.

>Sorry for any typos, I’m unabashedly phoneposting.
I can't judge you for that in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.11131077]

The more I learn about soviet Russia the more I realize how unoriginal 1984 is.

[Anonymous No.11131110]

>>11127084
his mommie

[Anonymous No.11131127]

>>11131077
lol

[Anonymous No.11131331]

>>11129645
Stick with it it takes a few chapters to get into.

[Anonymous No.11131337]

>>11131077
Much of the things we now know about the Soviet system were unconfirmed rumours at the time Orwell was writing. "Gulag archipelago" wouldn't be written until the 70s, the Ukrainian famine was still denied by Western media, etc. You had to really pay attention in those days, and Orwell did.

[Anonymous No.11131423]

>>11127635
Show them Yuri Bezmenov.

[Anonymous No.11131442]

>>11129400
This is the laziest knee-jerk reaction to Communism. "I don't have to understand what I'm talking about because it's wrong anyways". Imagine doing this with any other philosopher:
>the forms exist in material reality
>no, Plato says the forms exist outside of reality in a higher realm
>Yeah, well, the theory of the forms is bullshit anyways

[Anonymous No.11131643]

>>11131442
Imagine being this wrong

[Anonymous No.11131781]

Charrington is Goldstein.

[Anonymous No.11131793]

What does doublespeak mean? idgi

[Anonymous No.11131813]

>>11126396
This book is a refutation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in how a society can be subverted by language among other means. Like somebody else said, it's an allegorical masterpiece that allows for lots of discussion in philosophy, psychology, politics, linguistics, and the intersections of those fields. If you're a brainlet who says "1984 isn't supposed to be a handbook!", or if you're a half-brainlet who is obsessed with countersignaling brainlet shenanigans to the detriment of intellectual work, then maybe the brilliance might be lost on you.

[Anonymous No.11131822]

>>11131813
>If you're a brainlet who says "1984 isn't supposed to be a handbook!", or if you're a half-brainlet who is obsessed with countersignaling brainlet shenanigans to the detriment of intellectual work, then maybe the brilliance might be lost on you.
I agree, but are you implying that I did either of those things?

[Anonymous No.11131840]

>>11131822
I don't even know who you are, let alone if these generalizations apply in any way to you. Weirdo!

[Anonymous No.11131864]

>>11131793
"Doublespeak" isn't in the original novel; it's a later neologism that riffed on "doublethink". It refers to deliberately ambiguous/misleading statements, usually to advance political/ideological ends. It can be like a dogwhistle, shibboleth, etc. Orwell did write about the concept quite clearly even if he didn't give it the name now in use; here's an excerpt from "Politics and the English Language" with some examples:

>Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

[Anonymous No.11132024]

Here's a nice short read: "Oceana Has Never Been At War"

https://qntm.org/oceania

[Anonymous No.11132061]

>>11126422
because Huxley and Bradbury were right

[Anonymous No.11133031]

>>11132061
About what?

[Anonymous No.11133041]

>>11128931
>you reveal you voted for Trump
you deserve it tbqh

[Anonymous No.11133183]

>>11133041
What's wrong with voting for Trump?

[Anonymous No.11133196]

>>11133183
The man doesn't have a single reedimg quality

[Anonymous No.11133200]

>>11133196
Imagine thinking this

Stop derailing the thread retard

[Anonymous No.11133451]

bump

[Anonymous No.11133457]

>>11133200
what are Drumps reeding qualities?

[Anonymous No.11133487]

>>11133457
Pro-working class, against neocons (ostensibly), against neoliberals, funny, tough, charismatic, BTFO and triggers all of the right people, against internationalism, America-first, the only candidate who wasn't a shill for Israel and anti-war (though he's backpeddled on that) other than Bernie and Stein but they're both phonies. Anyone who is open borders cannot be for the workers or the middle class of the nation, and Trump was the only one who was strongly against it because he was financing his own campaign, not receiving the donations from mainly Jews (who contribute 50% of democrat contributions and 25% of republican, despite only being under 3% of the country) who make the puppets do their bidding. He honestly has a lot of redeeming qualities. Also, he doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs and he bangs 10/10 qts.

[Anonymous No.11133496]

>>11130836
epic post

[Anonymous No.11133512]

>>11133487
>who contribute 50% of democrat contributions and 25% of republican, despite only being under 3% of the country
source?

[Anonymous No.11133513]

>>11126396
1984 was decent, not a masterpiece but relatively imaginative. Orwell had an incorrect view of how the totalitarian state would creep in and establish itself, look to Huxley and BNW for a more accurate picture, but 1984 is the " better " book in terms of prose.

Homage to Catalonia is my favorite work of his so far.

[Anonymous No.11133515]

>>11133512
https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774

[Anonymous No.11133526]

>>11133512
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/218408
>A new report presented by Gil Troy of Mcgill University in Canada, shows that 50% of donations to Secretary Clinton’s campaign come from Jewish contributors. The study also found that 25% of donations to the Republican Party also come from Jewish donors.

>In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Troy stated that this is why presidential campaigns are aimed at Jews even though they only make up 2% of American voters.

[Anonymous No.11133529]

>>11133515
interesting

[Anonymous No.11133631]

>>11126399
> He's a middle-school-tier hack.
t. in high school

Orwell was ahead of his time in understanding what is now the field of behavioral psychology. Orwell was black-pilled and comes off like a god damn nihilist in the process. Still, he was right about damn near everything in his book. And, bonus points, he doesn't fluff his material up with lots of unnecessary words.

[Anonymous No.11133644]

>>11133631
>reads "Politics and the English Language" once

[Anonymous No.11133676]

>>11130608
>and thought Boxers character was brought to an unsatisfying end
How so? Thought the build up he was given didn't merit his death?

[Anonymous No.11133721]

>>11128963
I'm not here to argue in favor of communism, that's not the point, the point is that Orwell believed you could have stateless communism and that's what he advocated for
if you don't agree that's fine but many people who've looked at his works have come to the conclusion that that was what he believed in

[Anonymous No.11133723]

>>11133031
Everything

[Anonymous No.11133745]

>>11131813
oh it's allegorical alright, and maybe even a masterpiece of storytelling, but it's absolutely not an allegorical masterpiece, it bashes you over the head with every piece of allegory if you have even a passing knowledge of authoritarian regimes

[Anonymous No.11133753]

>>11131813
literally the only good thing about the book

[Anonymous No.11133784]

>>11133487
>Pro-working class
a rich man in favor of the working class? bullshit
>against neocons (ostensibly)
his is the new form of neocon
>against neoliberals
so?
>funny
he's really not, even before the election ruckus I never once saw a comment of his that made me laugh or chuckle
>tough
he acts tough, that's not the same as being tough
>charismatic
that must be why so many people hate him
>BTFO and triggers all of the right people
le edgy /ourguy/
>against internationalism
must be why he married a foreigner and won't go full trade war with China
>America-first
debateable
>the only candidate who wasn't a shill for Israel and anti-war
bull-fucking-shit, he never even pretended to not be Israel's lapdog
how can one person be so wrong?

[Anonymous No.11133812]

>>11133784
Based

[Anonymous No.11133844]

>>11126396
I liked it better when it was called Kill la Kill

[Anonymous No.11133867]

>>11133721
>people
(((people)))

[Anonymous No.11133902]

>>11126396
I always find this sentiment intriguing, almost every generation that has read this book feels that it applies to their specific time period.

>what does it all mean

[Anonymous No.11133925]

>>11133902
That's a really good point, anon.

Furthermore, since it seems like authoritarians of every stripe want to control language to a greater or lesser degree, people of any political persuasion can call their opponents "Orwellian" (not that they themselves would DREAM of doing such a thing, of course).

It's pretty amazingly applicable... almost like, say, Orwell wasn't demonizing one group over another, but just making everyone aware of the tools that authoritarians use.

[Anonymous No.11133936]

>>11133631
this

[Anonymous No.11133957]

>>11133925
Thats a bingo.
It is also funny to me when 1984 comes up under the context of it being for or against particular factions.
It always seems to be interpreted as anti-'whatever I don't like' no matter what the 'whatever I don't like' is.

>protip you can troll /pol/ with this book far too easily

[Anonymous No.11133996]

>>11133925
it means people like for there to be some oppression because it means they get to be a defiant hero, or at think they're one, or at least fantasize about becoming one
people already want to be heroes and a lot of them already want to be defiant, but being defiant with no reason just feels like being a dick, and a hero without a cause isn't much of a hero
oppression (or the idea of it) kills two birds with one stone
also the way it's put together is so heightened and so abstracted from anything we currently have (the national borders are all different; the technology is a weird mix of old, new, and not-yet-existant; there's the linguistic element; society is stratified in a specific way most people aren't familiar with; the story doesn't focus on a common dude or a ruler but a clerical worker doing stuff for the government)

[Anonymous No.11133999]

>>11133996
meant to reply to >>11133902

[Anonymous No.11134011]

>>11133784
>a rich man in favor of the working class?
Yep, much more so than any of the other candidates.
>his is the new form of neocon
I agree more each day, specifically attacking Syria and pulling out of the Iran deal, as well as accepting Netanyahu's b.s. claims of Iranian nuclear weapons while Israel clearly has nuclear weapons and lies about them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUT4fjmYIwI
>against neoliberals
he was legitimately the only candidate actually against them. The more 3rd party and fringe people who talked a big game actually hardly differ from the neoliberal agenda if you look at each issue individually.
>not funny
Alright, thanks for your opinion
>that must be why so many people hate him
He's had an international global campaign against him from all of the press, media, entertainment, etc. yet he still pulled out a victory. How many other people alive right now could have achieved this while the press slandered and lied about him multiple times each day and gaslit the public every second of every day. Besides, the fact the many hate someone does not mean they aren't charismatic. It might show just how charismatic they are.
>le edgy /ourguy/
Basically, yeah.
>married a foreigner
So that makes him a hypocrite for not wanting some international oligarchs to dictate our policy for us?
>won't go full trade war with China
That's an arbitrary standard to say whether or not he is against internationalism. There are a million other things you can bring up beside that. Sure, he mentioned China a lot in the lead up to the election, and he's already worked toward changes in our trade policy with China by putting forward steel tariffs.
>America-first
Well now he's Israel-first
>he never even pretended to not be Israel's lapdog
Sure he voiced his support here and there, but when it comes to what Israel actually wanted he would dogwhistle against them. He would refer to the War in Iraq as a disastrous war and blame it on Bush though we know it is neocons like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Abrams who pushed for this through a nonsense pretext. 9/11 happens, then all of a sudden weapons of mass destruction - what is the justification for invading Iraq if the hijackers were Saudis? Israeli intelligence said that the mastermind behind the hijacks met with a member of Iraqi government and received anthrax from him. Then Colin Powell presents a vial of anthrax like a retard and all of a sudden we are destabilizing the Middle East. Trump knows all of this. Hillary was for this, like she was for Libya, and she would be going 100x as hard on Syria and Iran right now if she were in office.

[Anonymous No.11134045]

>>11126396

Good stuff. I like Huxley more, but that's just me. Homage to Catalonia is great.

[Anonymous No.11134052]

>>11133487
>Pro-working class
His tax policies and him being against any form of universal healthcare are big signs of the contrary. He didn't pass a single policy which is explicitly pro working class and not pro national rich people.
>against neoliberals
in the context of dumbass protectionism which doesn't benefit anyone if not some industries which are losing under the free market and need to be kept alive by mommy government
>Also, he doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs
I have trouble believing this one

[this is a shill No.11134059]

>>11134011
shill lol

[Anonymous No.11134060]

>>11128415
>I've read all of Capital V. 1 and many of his and his followers' other works.

[Anonymous No.11134076]

>>11134052
>>11134059
>>11134060
samefag

[this is a shill No.11134083]

>>11134076
No i just called you a shill, i don’t know what the other anon’s position is but you are a shill from the structure of your post and the use of propagandist terms, either a useful idiot political warrior or actual paid asset doing work online which there are thousands of all over twitter and 4chan posting around the clock pro-Trump nonsense; i know the JIDF does this for Israel, so its only reasonable to assume Russia and right wing political factions would do the same. Im sure in germany they fund propaganda bots and shills which is why such a large number of the nazi /pol/ flags are from Germany

[Anonymous No.11134092]

>>11134083
How am I a useful idiot or supporter of Trump if I'm critical of his bending over for Israel?
This is retarded, you're not even addressing any points, just stupid ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.11134098]

>>11134092
>supporter of Trump
paid asset/shill**