Orwell vs Huxley

[Havet]

This is mostly adressed to the kind of libertarians who spend all day talking about how closer we are to George Orwell's 1984, though i think everyone will find it amusing and intellectually stimulating:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/535/xmnt6.jpg

So, in which scenario do you think we are closer to?

[Dean]

Force is required for the maintenance of both systems, and reading both books will show this.

I think Huxley's is more accurate in reference to western consumerist economics, whereas Orwell's is more accurate in terms of what these power structures inflict on those in the developing world.

[Scary Monster]

Force is required for the maintenance of both systems, and reading both books will show this.

I think Huxley's is more accurate in reference to western consumerist economics, whereas Orwell's is more accurate in terms of what these power structures inflict on those in the developing world.

Exactly. Huxley is good for illustrating the existential degeneracy of consumerism. While those who are not in the first world are subject to something more clear and present- the ruthless violence of the enforcement of capital and extreme poverty as a result.

[ChrisK]

Huxley is writing from the position of over-decedence being a bad thing and it is clear that this is the path America took.

Orwell is writing a critique of the Soviet Union, as being Beuracratic Collectivist (as evidenced by the book Winston reads about Oligarchical Collectivism and by the three classes being upper party, lower party and proletariat). He is writing it in terms of three super states that are Collectivist (I believe; it has been years since I read 1984) and this clearly isn't how the world turned out.

[Comrade Anarchist]

A state capitalist government like those that exist in the western world are more tended to the brave new world, while collectivist societies like 1930s and 40's germany and russia and all collectivist states are more aimed towards 1984. Societies that exist with monopolies and large governments that work hand and hand try to blind people to the reality by babying them, the modern day nanny state for example. While in fascist, communist regimes are on the other hand quite open with their tyranny but they hide it behind phrases like common good and such so the people swallow it.

[elf]

Why can't we have both?

Anti-terrorism laws, Internet censorship, free speech zones, Tasers, water cannons and pepper spray.

TV, computer games and consumerism.

Sit still and do nothing, or else! Huxley wrote slightly about this, those who deviated (generally Alphas) were repressed. If they continued to deviate, then they were shipped of to some island where they could not cause trouble.


Huxley is writing from the position of over-decedence being a bad thing and it is clear that this is the path America took.

Orwell is writing a critique of the Soviet Union, as being Beuracratic Collectivist (as evidenced by the book Winston reads about Oligarchical Collectivism and by the three classes being upper party, lower party and proletariat). He is writing it in terms of three super states that are Collectivist (I believe; it has been years since I read 1984) and this clearly isn't how the world turned out.
Orwell was warning just as much (if not more) about the British government of the 1940s. He wasn't writing a perfect future prediction. He was writing a warning. And, many of the things he was warning about, are things we still have to watch out for.

[#FF0000]

Orwell was warning just as much (if not more) about the British government of the 1940s. He wasn't writing a perfect future prediction. He was writing a warning. And, many of the things he was warning about, are things we still have to watch out for.

That's interesting. Even more interesting because he ratted out a lot of leftists to the British Gov't.

[Dean]

That's interesting. Even more interesting because he ratted out a lot of leftists to the British Gov't.

Is that the case? I've never heard this claim before... do you have a source?

EDIT: nevermind, I've found it. That's really a shame.

[La Comédie Noire]

Both books sucked in my opinion and are both required reading for High Schools for a reason.

[vyborg]

I think they wrote very interesting books. 1984 is, of course, an accurate description of stalinism. The new world is a mix of capitalism and socialism (as Huxley understood it) as we can see from the name etc.

One thing that is very different in the 2 books, and rightly so, is the attitude of the regime towards sex. in 1984 the regime is very repressive, in Huxley's regime sex is used as a way to defuse conflicts.

[LeftSideDown]

Both books sucked in my opinion and are both required reading for High Schools for a reason.

Most books read in High School are pretty bad and seem, to me at least, to only serve the purposes of punishing students with the same tiresome and boring books that those teachers had to read while they were going through school.

"I learned about Great Expectations when I was studying English, I know how to teach this, therefore I will."

[elf]

That's interesting. Even more interesting because he ratted out a lot of leftists to the British Gov't.
I understand that those "leftists" he "ratted out" were publicly known, and the list was regarding their usefulness as part of the propaganda effort against the USSR (rather than for more nefarious purposes). Whatever.

Orwell was involved with the BBC during the war, and thus had first had experience with censorship and the British propaganda ministry. The MOI en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Information_(United_Kingdom) and then COI en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Office_of_Information

I believe that another first hand experience, the almost magical way the USSR went from foe to friend overnight during the war and back to foe after, and the way the government talked about this, would also have influenced his writing.

It is definitely the case that Animal Farm was about the USSR, but I believe that 1984 was much more a warning about the totalitarian aspects of life Orwell was seeing happening in his own life time. 1984 is a mirror for [his] times. The book was finished in 1948.

Alas, I have no references apart from Wikipedia, because I cannot access my books. If I could, and if I had the time, I would submit many more quotes to support my position.

[jmlima]

...
It is definitely the case that Animal Farm was about the USSR, ...

It was more about Stalinism than the USSR. Orwell was drawing from his personal experience in having been on the wrong side of Stalin's preferences when he was with the POUM.

It's amazing how well he grasped it in such a short period.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think 1984 was about much more than Stalinism, and I think that's a common perception with hindsight now. While Orwell was certainly influenced by Spain, I don't think it can explain everything.

1984 was written in the late 1940s, when it appeared we were heading for another go round between good and evil. The hatred Orwell must have seen for Germans would have been replaced for hatred of Russians, even though the Russians were friends a few years before, and the dirty germans had been bombing london.

One can look at the afghan mujahideen, freedom fighters defending their homeland turned religious zealots who torture women and hate america. Saddam Hussein, good businessman keeping the peace in an unstable land turned maniac war criminal intent on blowing up the world.

I see strains of both works in todays world, neither being really spot on, but both certainly hitting the mark at times.

And 1984 is about so much more than Josef Stalin.