Originally posted by Comrade
[email protected] 4 2006, 02:14 AM
Yes, Winston states it but his opinion is unimportant. His opinion is pretty much useless as the party easily keeps the proles under control. The proles are characterized as dim witted animals who have no desire for rebellion or any unity at all, they're not going to awake. Why would the point of the novel be to resist, the reader clearly sees that Winston's resistance was insignificant. Nothing changed in the book. The people who recommended it want the reader to see that change is hopeless. Resistance to the party in the novel is not only futile because it is physically and psychologically impossible but will soon be linguistically impossible. How can future generations particularly the proles undermine the party when deviation from party doctrine is impossible with the party omniscient. Remember that fighting against Big Brother actually made Winston conform more, which is why the view of the book is so pessimistic. It's a piece of literature, so we're bound to have different opinions of it.
The book is a criticism of Stalinism directly but is a criticism of Marxism indirectly. Do you actually think that the school board woud recommend this book because it is a beacon of hope for revolutionaries? If that were the case, then why didn't Orwell allow Winston to join an actual underground movement. Besides, there's already been a discussion of this in the Literature section.
Not characterized as dim witted animals, but kept so by the party/state apparatus, kept silence by the lottery, the illusion of the possibility of wealth (which is actually comparable to the situation now)
Winston's resistance was insignificant on the whole, but still better than conforming. Even though he died, was utterly smashed, his resistance was worth it.
Its not about whether the party endures forever, its about how things can get fucked and eventually become to mean the opposit. Its a warning, a warning to revolutionaries not to trust leaders, not to give anyone such a position in which he can do these things.
And the linguistical impossibility is only so for those within the party, the newspeak is not to be imposed on the proles, thus adding to it that the proles are the only hope.
Essentially its even a comparison to todays society. All which is needed is the unification of the proles against their masters, they would deal with them like a horse shaking off flies. The only problem is that it doesnt seem likely, nor does it seem likely in today's society.
Regardless of what you think of the book as a whole, the main point is that its a warning, a warning and a critique of stalinism, personality cults etc...not of marxism himself. Bear in mind that orwell himself fought in POUM (bunch o' trots) in the spanish civil war.
Its not a beacon of hope, its a warning, but not against marxism. The book clearly states that though the things were done in the name of the party and in the name of socialism, they were in fact the opposite to socialism.