Who Got It Right: Orwell or Huxley?(pairagraph.com)
pairagraph.com
Who Got It Right: Orwell or Huxley?
https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/07d855107abf428c97583312e1e738fe
119 comments
Although I understand its been critiqued, I always liked the visual depiction of "amusing ourselves to death" from Postman [1], by McMillen [2]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
[2]: https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webc...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
[2]: https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webc...
Elements of both exist in the modern world, but Huxley's is easier to overlook. Authorities need people to mostly not react to intolerable things that are happening, and it's best if you do it from placating people with drugs/toys/pacifiers rather than the whip, because people who are pacified will pressure other people into not rocking the boat, whereas people who are being whipped will complain about it to their friends and try to build up a resistance movement.
Of course when you do go for the whip, you want to newspeak it into something else, so that also works, in small doses. Your problem occurs if it escalates, then you can't hold it down with PR anymore.
So 1984 is metastable and such societies did in fact boil over. BNW is stable and invisible to a lot of people, though I suspect there is some failure mode we have yet to see. Maybe there's a line of thought where people just get sick of every damn thing being massaged to death by PR people, and they do something about it.
Of course when you do go for the whip, you want to newspeak it into something else, so that also works, in small doses. Your problem occurs if it escalates, then you can't hold it down with PR anymore.
So 1984 is metastable and such societies did in fact boil over. BNW is stable and invisible to a lot of people, though I suspect there is some failure mode we have yet to see. Maybe there's a line of thought where people just get sick of every damn thing being massaged to death by PR people, and they do something about it.
> Authorities need people to mostly not react to intolerable things that are happening, and it's best if you do it from placating people with drugs/toys/pacifiers rather than the whip […]
Some modern autocracies don't go after enemies but more protect friends:
> The transition [in Hungary] has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. […] The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-...
* https://archive.fo/ZIzCm
Some modern autocracies don't go after enemies but more protect friends:
> The transition [in Hungary] has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. […] The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-...
* https://archive.fo/ZIzCm
I've always thought the achilles heel of Oceania's government was the economy. Pretty much the one thing they couldn't really place into their 'subjective reality' philosophical framework.
The way information passed through the Outer Party technicians was extremely compartmentalized. It was a command economy, did anyone actually know how things were going? The statistics were basically all lies. Eventually the gin and cigarettes would stop flowing.
The way information passed through the Outer Party technicians was extremely compartmentalized. It was a command economy, did anyone actually know how things were going? The statistics were basically all lies. Eventually the gin and cigarettes would stop flowing.
Related, there are stories of the USSR turning its own spy satellites on itself to estimate correct crop yields because of the culture of lying and exaggeration internally. Basically nobody at the top really knew what was going on, because everyone below them constantly lied to avoid getting in trouble.
I am not sure about all this: they did have a very competent secret service after all.
So the director of the agrar kolchose might lie and so on, but why should the secret informants who are installed in that company, lie about it?
So I am pretty sure, the information was avaiable. It was probably a matter of not wanting to believe the information as that would mean, the glorious sovjet union was maybe not so glorious after all - and thinking that, would make you a traitor. So lets just continue to wave and smile.
So the director of the agrar kolchose might lie and so on, but why should the secret informants who are installed in that company, lie about it?
So I am pretty sure, the information was avaiable. It was probably a matter of not wanting to believe the information as that would mean, the glorious sovjet union was maybe not so glorious after all - and thinking that, would make you a traitor. So lets just continue to wave and smile.
Presumably the sort of people who can task spy satellites are the secret service.
This is pretty historically documented, and kind of something that still exists as a holdover in ex-Soviet countries. The lying became so pervasive that it was impossible to tell what the actual output of industry was
The spies lied too and, perhaps worse, the analysis back at the Center was motivated by politics and the usual careerism. The Mitrokhin archives provide an excellent look at how the played out in foreign intelligence, domestic spying was fairly similar.
When everyone lies the only thing spies can collect is lies.
The spies were only used for repression, not for productive endeavours
The failure mode for BNW is when the gravy train runs out and the authorities can no longer afford to keep the public pacified. The much older concept than Huxley's story that Huxley's story is drawing from is "bread and circuses."
That's one of the reason that mullification through the carrot works so well in the United States... It's a very wealthy nation with vast reserves of resources to draw upon to keep people happy.
That's one of the reason that mullification through the carrot works so well in the United States... It's a very wealthy nation with vast reserves of resources to draw upon to keep people happy.
Sure, but part of how it keeps itself alive is it recruits all these mullified people to work for it, and throwing off some reward to them. This can sustain itself for a long while, as it seems to be doing.
Perhaps the thing that happens is people see it's all BS and just decide they don't need all the toys, and once they don't need the toys, they don't need to work either. Plus they'll get more critical of the system.
Perhaps the thing that happens is people see it's all BS and just decide they don't need all the toys, and once they don't need the toys, they don't need to work either. Plus they'll get more critical of the system.
The toys are one dimension of perceived and artificially created desires for the hoi polloi.
Please take into account that most of us humans are bound by various obligations. Be it the financial type, i.e. paying off your house for 30+ years or, even more captivating, creating substitutes for natural needs. Compare with the fact that most of us live isolated, especially in these times, without real world communication beyond chats, mail, telephone and, well, Hacker News. The lack of face to face opportunities to speak and do nonverbal communication is one of the causes for rising psychological diseases, drug abuse and antisocial behaviours in the last decade.
Our post Neolithic Revolution society is based on the concept of the ruler and the ruled. Why? Because having power is also a desire which may be the most destructive one for humanity in general.
We may be living on a punishment planet or simulation.
Please take into account that most of us humans are bound by various obligations. Be it the financial type, i.e. paying off your house for 30+ years or, even more captivating, creating substitutes for natural needs. Compare with the fact that most of us live isolated, especially in these times, without real world communication beyond chats, mail, telephone and, well, Hacker News. The lack of face to face opportunities to speak and do nonverbal communication is one of the causes for rising psychological diseases, drug abuse and antisocial behaviours in the last decade.
Our post Neolithic Revolution society is based on the concept of the ruler and the ruled. Why? Because having power is also a desire which may be the most destructive one for humanity in general.
We may be living on a punishment planet or simulation.
Interesting that in a discussion of totalitarian regimes you would bring up the the "we are only wealthy because we steal wealth from the ground" thing. This whole idea was actually invented by Lenin in the 1920s to justify his totalitarian regime. There is no connection between it and reality, it was just propaganda to explain why Capitalism was still working and had not collapsed like Marx had predicted.
"Resources" exist in people's minds, not in the ground. Rocks and toxic sludge have no intrinsic value.
"Resources" exist in people's minds, not in the ground. Rocks and toxic sludge have no intrinsic value.
I think you'll need to clarify your meaning... I didn't mention the ground. I mostly mean that the United States has multiple industries dedicated to figuring out what makes people happy (or at least keeps their joy buttons pushed) and arranges the whole chain of operations to push them and to convince people to do work to make sure they get pushed.
That wealth takes the form of things in the ground, but also influence and the capacity to satisfy the desires of other countries and the people in them. Some of that is powered by processes that use raw materials that are non-renewable and dragged from the ground, but in the United States a lot of it is based on a hugely robust import export economy... Most of the things that push the joy buttons come from China.
That wealth takes the form of things in the ground, but also influence and the capacity to satisfy the desires of other countries and the people in them. Some of that is powered by processes that use raw materials that are non-renewable and dragged from the ground, but in the United States a lot of it is based on a hugely robust import export economy... Most of the things that push the joy buttons come from China.
Oh sorry I miss understood what you meant by "resources"
> Elements of both exist in the modern world
You could describe the dystopian part of our condition as a blend of various dystopian tropes: https://i.imgur.com/kDo2NNr.jpg
Which of these is most dominant depends on where you live.
You could describe the dystopian part of our condition as a blend of various dystopian tropes: https://i.imgur.com/kDo2NNr.jpg
Which of these is most dominant depends on where you live.
> ...though I suspect there is some failure mode we have yet to see. Maybe there's a line of thought where people just get sick of every damn thing being massaged to death by PR people, and they do something about it.
Yes please! A Brontitallian Revolution!
All we need is a mass vision of Arthur Dent Throwing The Nutrimatic Cup.
Yes please! A Brontitallian Revolution!
All we need is a mass vision of Arthur Dent Throwing The Nutrimatic Cup.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Orwell vs Huxley seems to be the lens of how people react to what is done to them. I'm more interested in why those in power do those things in the first place. The article points to the students as if they have power, I don't think they do, they're trapped in a system and reacting to it as pretty much any young human would do in the same position.
Possibly my favorite example of the powerful impressing a way of life on a huge number of people is the diplomatic sealed train the Germans used to send Lenin from Switzerland to Russia. i.e. the Russian Revolution was an intentional act done to it by cynical Germans who correctly expected the outcome would help them in the war. And the rest is history.
Possibly my favorite example of the powerful impressing a way of life on a huge number of people is the diplomatic sealed train the Germans used to send Lenin from Switzerland to Russia. i.e. the Russian Revolution was an intentional act done to it by cynical Germans who correctly expected the outcome would help them in the war. And the rest is history.
After reading Dune and also being an engineering leader, I’ve come to view power as multivariate. In some ways you have less power when you’re in charge. To go with your example, many other countries didn’t see a choice in getting involved in WW1.
One of my takeaways from 1984 is that those who are supposedly in charge are slaves to a self perpetuating emergent behavior. It often feels like it is never a choice. How much of politics is decided by Henry Kissinger and his disciples (e.g. Klaus Schwab - Davos) carrying on the tradition of realpolitik.
“those who are supposedly in charge are slaves to a self perpetuating emergent behavior”
That describes most of society and for sure a lot of companies. A lot of people realize that something is not right but they still stay confined within that framework.
That describes most of society and for sure a lot of companies. A lot of people realize that something is not right but they still stay confined within that framework.
Big Brother wasn't self perpetuating though. The book is mostly about the enormous efforts and manipulations required to sustain it.
The emergent behavior in this example includes big brother and those who perpetuate it. Just because something is costly doesn’t mean it can’t ensure it’s continued existence.
“Self perpetuating emergent behavior” is the best summary I’ve ever heard of this phenomenon
Sending Lenin to Russia wasn’t about causing a revolution, that had actually already happened, but it was about trying to affect who would win the following fight for power.
Power is a hell of a drug.
> i.e. the Russian Revolution was an intentional act done to it by cynical Germans who correctly expected the outcome would help them in the war.
Claiming that Germany caused the Russian Revolution via the sole act of sending him back to Russia is not true.
While it is true that Lenin ultimately led the Bolsheviks to power, the reason Germany even thought about sending Lenin back was that Russia was already on the brink of collapse due to reasons a mile long and Germany was throwing shit against the wall to hasten Russian collapse.
Claiming a revolution of an entire country was caused by a single person is a bit much.
Claiming that Germany caused the Russian Revolution via the sole act of sending him back to Russia is not true.
While it is true that Lenin ultimately led the Bolsheviks to power, the reason Germany even thought about sending Lenin back was that Russia was already on the brink of collapse due to reasons a mile long and Germany was throwing shit against the wall to hasten Russian collapse.
Claiming a revolution of an entire country was caused by a single person is a bit much.
No such claim, it was over 30 exiles, and I suspect were also given large amounts of money and weapons. It’s a murky area of history, I haven’t dug deep enough to be able to authenticate supposed forgeries etc. but prima facie it would make sense.
Huxley seems to be more right in the long term, since Orwellian oppression is very visible, people work to fix it and eventually do. Not so for Huxly-an dystopia.
> Orwellian oppression is very visible
Yes.
> people work to fix it and eventually do.
No?
My understanding of Orwellian oppression is exactly that even though people are very aware that it exists, only a small minority of people care enough (or are personally harmed enough) to want to take actions change it.
Just look at modern day China. All but the most naive are aware of things like censorship and surveillance. Most have first-hand interactions with both. People joke about it all the time (being "invited for tea" or such and such news was "harmonized" a.k.a. censored). Some of the language has evolved to be almost not that different from what was envisioned in Newspeak.
And yet, the average person does not feel violated enough to actually do something about anything. It's much easier to just go with the flow and not do what the state doesn't like.
Yes.
> people work to fix it and eventually do.
No?
My understanding of Orwellian oppression is exactly that even though people are very aware that it exists, only a small minority of people care enough (or are personally harmed enough) to want to take actions change it.
Just look at modern day China. All but the most naive are aware of things like censorship and surveillance. Most have first-hand interactions with both. People joke about it all the time (being "invited for tea" or such and such news was "harmonized" a.k.a. censored). Some of the language has evolved to be almost not that different from what was envisioned in Newspeak.
And yet, the average person does not feel violated enough to actually do something about anything. It's much easier to just go with the flow and not do what the state doesn't like.
>And yet, the average person does not feel violated enough to actually do something about anything. It's much easier to just go with the flow and not do what the state doesn't like.
The problem is it requires a lot of people to make a difference. A single person or a small group protesting gets thrown into a reeducation camp for 20 years (if they are lucky). That's one of the reasons mass surveillance is so nefarious; you can't start to plan a mass assembly/protest to address grievances without being noticed beforehand and thrown into a reeducation camp for 20 years (if you are lucky). You can't even talk about grievances with more than a few other people in a dark closet somewhere.
The problem is it requires a lot of people to make a difference. A single person or a small group protesting gets thrown into a reeducation camp for 20 years (if they are lucky). That's one of the reasons mass surveillance is so nefarious; you can't start to plan a mass assembly/protest to address grievances without being noticed beforehand and thrown into a reeducation camp for 20 years (if you are lucky). You can't even talk about grievances with more than a few other people in a dark closet somewhere.
Right, and that was the point of the Orwellian dystopia. Even if a single person sees the dystopia for what it is, they cannot get the masses to act.
It's even more insidious than that. Even if the masses see the dystopia for what it is, they can't come together to fight it, because surveillance will be watching their coordination efforts.
In North Korea I suspect most everyone knows the propaganda is bullshit, but even a whisper of dissent will send the police knocking at your door. We aren't as bad as North Korea of course, but it sure smells similar.
In North Korea I suspect most everyone knows the propaganda is bullshit, but even a whisper of dissent will send the police knocking at your door. We aren't as bad as North Korea of course, but it sure smells similar.
The trouble is I'm perfectly fine with the Huxlian distopia. Ship me off to an island of intellectual dissidents and give me some good drugs, I'm down for that world.
Kafka is the one who really got it right. I've never felt a more realistic depiction of my life than The Trial.
Kafka is the one who really got it right. I've never felt a more realistic depiction of my life than The Trial.
I'd be down for 60 years of good health, I think of the amount of work that I could do. I think the problem is that they have to keep throwing the work away and the pointlessness of it all would kill me.
There is a related thread on the problems Argentina is currently facing. It is worth reading through to see just how wrong you are. The problems Argentina is facing are well known and obvious and no one is doing anything about it, those problems have existed for decades. The newspeak is so strong in Argentina that even in that thread no one will say the real reasons out loud.
Even when I was there 20 years ago, people had to hush whisper and look around to see who was listening when talking about the problems they were facing.
Even when I was there 20 years ago, people had to hush whisper and look around to see who was listening when talking about the problems they were facing.
> The newspeak is so strong in Argentina that even in that thread no one will say the real reasons out loud.
What's stopping you from saying what you think are the real reasons?
What's stopping you from saying what you think are the real reasons?
Don't want to bother getting into a fight strangers on the internet. The reasons are obvious and well know. Just look at any country in South America that is suffering and it is always the same reason - socialism.
Orwellian oppression is very visible, people work to fix it and eventually do.
At least in 1984, oppression wins. It is a very bleak ending.
At least in 1984, oppression wins. It is a very bleak ending.
It wins over Winston, but not forever. The appendix on Newspeak is written in past tense, implying that at some time it came to an end.
> Orwellian oppression is very visible
1984 makes a fairly strong point that this is not true.
The proles do not conceive of the fact that they are oppressed. Only the outer party can even think this, and at best its a muted response. Newspeak is about making it impossible to see or conceptualize oppression or injustice.
1984 makes a fairly strong point that this is not true.
The proles do not conceive of the fact that they are oppressed. Only the outer party can even think this, and at best its a muted response. Newspeak is about making it impossible to see or conceptualize oppression or injustice.
Ironically, the article and this discussion seems like a good case in point!
"Totalitarianism was Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the state controlled everyone through the infliction of pain and terror"
That sounds far closer to our current existence than BNW. Where are my bread and circuses? Circuses were shut down for much of the last two years, because of the need to fight an ever-shifting war against a terrifying virus ... a danger that cannot be directly perceived because almost everyone who gets it has mild symptoms and recover after a few days, but which rather, can only be truly perceived through the telescreen in our living rooms and the pronouncements of the ruling classes.
The parallels to 1984 are everywhere recent times, yet the majority cannot see them. Newspeak is in abundance. Policies change overnight and yet the Party claims that the policy was always the same, previously famous people get erased instantly the moment they object, and the population is trained to demand their own oppression, believing ultra-harsh conditions to be an expression of love.
"Totalitarianism was Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the state controlled everyone through the infliction of pain and terror"
That sounds far closer to our current existence than BNW. Where are my bread and circuses? Circuses were shut down for much of the last two years, because of the need to fight an ever-shifting war against a terrifying virus ... a danger that cannot be directly perceived because almost everyone who gets it has mild symptoms and recover after a few days, but which rather, can only be truly perceived through the telescreen in our living rooms and the pronouncements of the ruling classes.
The parallels to 1984 are everywhere recent times, yet the majority cannot see them. Newspeak is in abundance. Policies change overnight and yet the Party claims that the policy was always the same, previously famous people get erased instantly the moment they object, and the population is trained to demand their own oppression, believing ultra-harsh conditions to be an expression of love.
> Newspeak is about making it impossible to see or conceptualize oppression or injustice.
But were the proles forced to use Newspeak? I thought they were singing folks songs and stuff...
But were the proles forced to use Newspeak? I thought they were singing folks songs and stuff...
Newspeak was primarily for the political classes, with the aim of absolute political control: ultimate authoritarianism of a system of thought (also see Sapir–Whorf hypothesis). By controlling language, all dissenting political opinions could be prevented, with the eventual goal that any thought that wasn’t the official line (such as liberty) could have only the single word ‘crimethink’ to describe it. Big brother and Emmanuel Goldstein (the revolutionary against the state) were fictions of the system, permanent idealised placeholders for the system. The system rules: people within the political system are trained by the system to be perfect cogs with zero independent thought, and the higher up in the hierarchy the less control and more mechanically thought-constricted the person became. Over time the system restricted thought, restricted language, and as the political class were replaced over the decades, the upcoming people were evermore controlled by the system. The only goal of the system was complete and total control.
The proles made up the majority of the population, but are almost invisible in the book, which leads to some odd Internet comments. The proles have zero political thought, and they live short lives of poverty. The proles are programmed to be interested in meaningless songs (produced by the versificator machine), meaningless persuits (such as lotteries), and other diversions. The proles do not speak newspeak, because they are not political. They certainly didn’t sing traditional folk songs (English aka ‘oldspeak’ is slowly abridged, removing all political words and nuances, and old literature is destroyed by rewriting it to remove all political nuance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-F...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein
The proles made up the majority of the population, but are almost invisible in the book, which leads to some odd Internet comments. The proles have zero political thought, and they live short lives of poverty. The proles are programmed to be interested in meaningless songs (produced by the versificator machine), meaningless persuits (such as lotteries), and other diversions. The proles do not speak newspeak, because they are not political. They certainly didn’t sing traditional folk songs (English aka ‘oldspeak’ is slowly abridged, removing all political words and nuances, and old literature is destroyed by rewriting it to remove all political nuance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-F...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein
I dont think the proles were, since they were already in a state where they could not recognize they were under the Party's boot.
"The proles are free"
Newspeak was supposed to stamp out "bad" thoughts from members the party.
"The proles are free"
Newspeak was supposed to stamp out "bad" thoughts from members the party.
How about Huxley is for 1st world rich countries like the US and Orwell for poor ones like the Soviet/Putin's Russia?
Neither because they both plagiarized Yevgeny Zamyatin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
Plagiarised is totally the wrong word here. Besides, We is satirical so quite different in tone. I greatly enjoyed all three novels though, and encourage people to read them all :)
It's almost the exact same plot as 1984 in a different sci-fi setting. But yeah sure, pedantically speaking it's not exactly plagiarism but it's not exactly original either.
Meaning that Zamyatin got it wrong, too?
Yeah, We is actually pretty bad.
The question isn't which is better or more original, the question is which predicted the future better. If you say neither because they copied We, it stands to reason that We didn't get it right either, nothing about good or bad. There's plenty of great SF with terrible "predictions" and vice versa.
whatever
A recent thread went around twitter discussing the need for artificial wombs to address the inequality between men and women. Huxley is the first place my mind went.
https://twitter.com/molly0xfff/status/1483831201823703041?s=...
https://twitter.com/molly0xfff/status/1483831201823703041?s=...
I don’t really see the either/or situation here. It seems like two ways in which states can control citizens, and with actors in the modern world taking lessons from both mixed with other sources.
[deleted]
They are not mutually exclusive? If you look at China, both are sort of happening at the same place in the same place.
Neither. The dystopia I fear is Terry Gilliam's Brazil, though on some days, I think we're headed toward Idiocracy.
We need to update Robert de Niro's character Harry Tuttle. In Brazil he's a rogue plumber who will sweep in and illegally fix pipes that would take the bureaucratic system months to fix. In the end he's literally consumed by paper(work).
In the modern era there's no visible plumbing to fix. Harry's only way to help the everyperson with their locked account is to tweet at the company's help handle. He's built up quite the celebrity doing just that and companies are forced to act on his demands. In the end, people are impatient, mention him too often, and his phone is DDoSed by a flood of tweets coming his way. He's never seen or heard of again.
In the modern era there's no visible plumbing to fix. Harry's only way to help the everyperson with their locked account is to tweet at the company's help handle. He's built up quite the celebrity doing just that and companies are forced to act on his demands. In the end, people are impatient, mention him too often, and his phone is DDoSed by a flood of tweets coming his way. He's never seen or heard of again.
I don't know. Within my company I feel like Harry Tuttle a lot of the time.
Idiocracy is already here, just not evenly distributed.
Has anyone here looked into the claim that both iconic works were inspired by ideas from the very same book, Bertrand Russell's 1931 classic "The Scientific Outlook"? Russell himself covers certain aspects of this in his "Prefatory note to the second edition" of Scientific Outlook, where he actually mentions the direct influence of this book upon both Brave new world and upon Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution", a book which contained projections of the future which, as Orwell scholars agree, both horrified and fascinated him and, in turn, turned out to be the inspiration for much of "1984".
“Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was written in four months and published in 1932, a year after the first appearance of The Scientific Outlook. Huxley's book mirrored Russell's prognostications on a number of points, from the divison of the population into Alphas, Betas and Epsilons, to the removal of sexual restrictions. There is no evidence that Huxley borrowed directly from Russell, but the two figures moved in overlapping circles, and one can imagine these conceits going the rounds of Bloomsbury dinner parties.”. “[James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution] was published in 1941 and is a rather more sober work of political analysis. Burnham, writing early in the Second World War, argued that the world would soon divide into two or three superstates. Within each a self-elected oligarchy would gain power and maintain a permanent readiness for war, using scientific techniques of surveillance and propaganda to keep the rest of the populace under control. It is unclear whether Russell really inspired Burnham, but Burnham certainly influenced a yet futher dystopic vision. George Orwell not only read Burnham's book, but commented on it through the 1940s in a series of articles and pamphlets.”, and “As Russell himself observes, in the Prefatory Note to the second edition of The Scientific Outlook in 1949 ‘The material of the last few chapters may now seem more familiar that at the time of the first edition, since it has been popularised in two widely read books, Huxley's Brave New World and Burnham's Managerial Revolution. I do not suggest that my book had any influence on either of these, but the parallels are interesting, and will, I hope, persuade my readers that my fears are more than an individual phantasy.’” - from an introduction of a further reprint of The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell.
“But Huxley clearly plundered Chapter 15 of Russell’s book, ‘Education in a Scientific Age’. Russell here departs from his expository mode (he was an incorrigible pontificator) to try his arm at a satirical prophecy about the socially engineered and class stratified society of the scientifically managed future. Children, he predicts, will be conditioned ‘some time before birth’ (by ‘thermal treatment of the embryo’) for their station in life. Manual workers (like Huxley’s Epsilons) ‘will be discouraged from serious thought and in general will be bred for patience and muscle rather than brain’. The society of the scientific future will be tranquillized by ‘new forms of drunkenness’ (i.e. ‘Soma’ in Brave New World). The only problem in this perfect world state will be ‘the psychology of the governors’ (i.e. disruptive Alpha-pluses, like Bernard Marx in Brave New World). If there were patent-protection in fictional scenarios any lawyer would have taken Russell’s case. The whole framework of Brave New World is to be found in the fifteenth chapter of The Scientific Outlook.” - from the Editorial Review below the fold at: https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldoux-Huxley-ebook/d...
“But Huxley clearly plundered Chapter 15 of Russell’s book, ‘Education in a Scientific Age’. Russell here departs from his expository mode (he was an incorrigible pontificator) to try his arm at a satirical prophecy about the socially engineered and class stratified society of the scientifically managed future. Children, he predicts, will be conditioned ‘some time before birth’ (by ‘thermal treatment of the embryo’) for their station in life. Manual workers (like Huxley’s Epsilons) ‘will be discouraged from serious thought and in general will be bred for patience and muscle rather than brain’. The society of the scientific future will be tranquillized by ‘new forms of drunkenness’ (i.e. ‘Soma’ in Brave New World). The only problem in this perfect world state will be ‘the psychology of the governors’ (i.e. disruptive Alpha-pluses, like Bernard Marx in Brave New World). If there were patent-protection in fictional scenarios any lawyer would have taken Russell’s case. The whole framework of Brave New World is to be found in the fifteenth chapter of The Scientific Outlook.” - from the Editorial Review below the fold at: https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldoux-Huxley-ebook/d...
Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury gives the perfect mix in my opinion: being semi-/pseudo-happy with the drugs and entertainment and when you try to leave that path, you face oppression in increasing degree.
My experience is that 1984 is much more re-readable. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, except that perhaps Orwell created a world that is more mentally inhabitable despite its grim nature. The little room above the shop is a respite we can all dream of.
There's nothing like that in Brave New World, though I think it's the wiser book.
There's nothing like that in Brave New World, though I think it's the wiser book.
There is a good british movie from 1936 about future https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come
It seems forgotten but i think it is still great and dusturbing.
It seems forgotten but i think it is still great and dusturbing.
Both, it's the mix that makes the perfect society, but 1984 is the better book ;)
We seem to fall into this interesting (and obvious) comparison about every 18months - 3 years. They both exist to some extent in different places today, but IMO Huxley has aged more accurately, especially if you squint a bit.
Neither because they're both fiction books marketed towards a popular audience for their entertainment. They are not substitutes for concrete analysis of historical facts.
"Who got it right, J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K. Rowling?"
"Who got it right, J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K. Rowling?"
Yes, they're fiction but...
Obviously the two books are a worse case scenario dystopia played out in a fictional world as a sandbox.
Orwell takes communism to the extreme of totalitarianism [1] to shows us what it might look like.
Huxley takes late stage capitalism to the extreme of authoritarian capitalism [3] to show what powerful elites running the world might look like in the far future.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism
Obviously the two books are a worse case scenario dystopia played out in a fictional world as a sandbox.
Orwell takes communism to the extreme of totalitarianism [1] to shows us what it might look like.
Huxley takes late stage capitalism to the extreme of authoritarian capitalism [3] to show what powerful elites running the world might look like in the far future.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism
"Totalitarianism" is as real as Goblins [1] and Orcs [2]; it is a Cold War propaganda term to smear enemy political systems. No person or government identifies as "totalitarian".
1984 and Brave New World are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales, earning the authors a living. They are not accurate representations of reality and anyone who bases their understanding of modern domestic and international politics & power on them is just as deeply unserious as someone who compares China to Mordor or Putin to Voldemort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
1984 and Brave New World are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales, earning the authors a living. They are not accurate representations of reality and anyone who bases their understanding of modern domestic and international politics & power on them is just as deeply unserious as someone who compares China to Mordor or Putin to Voldemort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
> are fiction books designed to be popular and have good sales
i believe your cynicism is unwarranted for 1984. That might have been true of a couple of Orwell’s novels, but as he became more political, he spent his life on his socialist ideals. He fought in the trenches fighting against the fascists in Spain. He lived in the north of England for a bit, trying to understand poverty from the inside (although Orwell himself came from an ‘English upper class’ family, a family that lacked the money to keep up their social appearances). Orwell lived socialism, he wasn’t primarily a novelist, which is why his writing is so real. 1984 is written as a political book, using the novel format as the foundation for exposition, similar to many good fantasy or sci-fi novels. Much of his writing is political non-fiction, although 1984 is his most famous work. 1984 was published when he was ~46, near the time of his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
i believe your cynicism is unwarranted for 1984. That might have been true of a couple of Orwell’s novels, but as he became more political, he spent his life on his socialist ideals. He fought in the trenches fighting against the fascists in Spain. He lived in the north of England for a bit, trying to understand poverty from the inside (although Orwell himself came from an ‘English upper class’ family, a family that lacked the money to keep up their social appearances). Orwell lived socialism, he wasn’t primarily a novelist, which is why his writing is so real. 1984 is written as a political book, using the novel format as the foundation for exposition, similar to many good fantasy or sci-fi novels. Much of his writing is political non-fiction, although 1984 is his most famous work. 1984 was published when he was ~46, near the time of his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
The books are using "the future" to describe their present times.
[deleted]
I always have to throw Brunner in - Stand on Zanzibar is the closest imho
Depends on the country.
China - Orwell
USA/EU - Huxley
China - Orwell
USA/EU - Huxley
Orwell is more oppression that is done to us. Huxley is more oppression that we go along with doing to ourselves. So far, it's more Huxley.
Both, depending on country/time period.
I've lived in Orwell's country (communist dictatorship) when I was young, now I live in Brave New World.
I've lived in Orwell's country (communist dictatorship) when I was young, now I live in Brave New World.
I'm here to collect my free sex and drugs.
Both. They are fictional explorations of human nature. Not prophecies about what the future will actually look like.
[deleted]
Am I the only one who read Brave New World and thought "That doesn't seem all that bad?"
Pros: you are high all the time
Cons: you don't have parents or a family, you never experience real human relationships or love, in all likelihood your fetus will have been intentionally handicapped before birth, and if you did win the lottery and were born with your intellect in tact you'll get sent to an island to die if you start thinking too much.
Cons: you don't have parents or a family, you never experience real human relationships or love, in all likelihood your fetus will have been intentionally handicapped before birth, and if you did win the lottery and were born with your intellect in tact you'll get sent to an island to die if you start thinking too much.
Here's an interesting review which makes something similar to that case:
http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/14/14432.html
The main thrust:
> More broadly, though, Huxley is arguing for people to continue leading the sorts of lives that make for high art rather than those that make people content. His chief complaint about the Brave New World is that people have taken the dizzying highs and terrifying lows that lend "nobility" and "heroism" to life and traded them in for the creamy middles of happiness. For that argument I have less sympathy. By which I mean fuck that noise. The notion that suffering is ennobling is a particularly destructive piece of social engineering, and the suggestion that other people should suffer because Aldous Huxley enjoys the "over-compensations for misery" that the artists among them produce is pretty vile.
http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/14/14432.html
The main thrust:
> More broadly, though, Huxley is arguing for people to continue leading the sorts of lives that make for high art rather than those that make people content. His chief complaint about the Brave New World is that people have taken the dizzying highs and terrifying lows that lend "nobility" and "heroism" to life and traded them in for the creamy middles of happiness. For that argument I have less sympathy. By which I mean fuck that noise. The notion that suffering is ennobling is a particularly destructive piece of social engineering, and the suggestion that other people should suffer because Aldous Huxley enjoys the "over-compensations for misery" that the artists among them produce is pretty vile.
It doesn't seem all that bad for the Alphas and Betas
Paging Epic Rap Battles of History.
I hate these either/or questions. A lot of societies have aspects of both. North Korea probably leans toward Orwell but the rest of the world more Huxley at the moment. But we shouldn’t create these dichotomies. Left vs right, socialism vs capitalism and so on. They stifle any reasonable discussion right before it can even begin. I guess that’s the purpose of offering only extreme alternatives.
Aldous wrote a utopia.
Orwell wrote a dystopia.
Orwell wrote a dystopia.
Both these 2 were old Etonians and Oxbridge students - pillars of the establishment. They were from the upper classes - the classes that believe they rightfully rule the oi polloi (everyone else).
So, whatever they wrote about is framed by their experience and understanding of reality. As part of the class that believes it is right to manage us, do you think that they were trying to warn the proles about the future? Were they trying to help us live a more meaningful life?
They were not. Their works were not a service to mankind, they were not warning us about the future or that old trope. What they were doing is putting down in writing their best understanding of the plans that were in store for us. It was a mental exploration of how future management might pan out, what it might look like.
I suspect that this writing was partly as a tool to give to the upper/administrative classes so that they had a clearer goal in mind. I also suspect that these works were disseminated more widely, as a population that is aware of the ideas does not respond in shock and reject them - mentally they have acclimatised to the future horrors. (Aka Predictive Programming.)
If this sounds implausible, consider the fact that Aldous's brother Julian, created UNESCO. His grandfather Thomas played a role in establishing the theory of evolution (which in many ways provides a biological justification for the role of the elites as 'they are the fittest'). George Orwell's actual name was Eric Blair - and of course there is a famous British politician - Tony Blair. (It is claimed they are not relations, but it remains possible - how can we know?)
The books themselves are purported to be set in the future. However, it is possible to read them in a different light (as I suggest above) - as a sort of visionary guide for those administrators of the 30's and 40's. This is to say, that a lot of power was already in existence then. Eugenics (a feature in both books) was an overtly accepted ideology of the upper classes at the time. The nazis made the term unfashionable, but there is are reasons to think that this ideology is still popular amongst the self-proclaimed elite class.
In direct answer to the question, I think the elites would prefer us to self-select our future slavery along the lines of BNW - we can have moral degeneracy (its already here!) drugs (ditto) and just do our epsilon/delta jobs. However, Orwell was right about the talking screens, and ultimately if we won't self-select our slavery there is a harder form soon available - Chinese credit scores (aka bio-medical-ids/crypto-wallets) which thanks to the technocracy we have been working hard to achieve (esp in IT), will mean some of us will be locked out of life in the system. So, its a mix of both visions.
So, whatever they wrote about is framed by their experience and understanding of reality. As part of the class that believes it is right to manage us, do you think that they were trying to warn the proles about the future? Were they trying to help us live a more meaningful life?
They were not. Their works were not a service to mankind, they were not warning us about the future or that old trope. What they were doing is putting down in writing their best understanding of the plans that were in store for us. It was a mental exploration of how future management might pan out, what it might look like.
I suspect that this writing was partly as a tool to give to the upper/administrative classes so that they had a clearer goal in mind. I also suspect that these works were disseminated more widely, as a population that is aware of the ideas does not respond in shock and reject them - mentally they have acclimatised to the future horrors. (Aka Predictive Programming.)
If this sounds implausible, consider the fact that Aldous's brother Julian, created UNESCO. His grandfather Thomas played a role in establishing the theory of evolution (which in many ways provides a biological justification for the role of the elites as 'they are the fittest'). George Orwell's actual name was Eric Blair - and of course there is a famous British politician - Tony Blair. (It is claimed they are not relations, but it remains possible - how can we know?)
The books themselves are purported to be set in the future. However, it is possible to read them in a different light (as I suggest above) - as a sort of visionary guide for those administrators of the 30's and 40's. This is to say, that a lot of power was already in existence then. Eugenics (a feature in both books) was an overtly accepted ideology of the upper classes at the time. The nazis made the term unfashionable, but there is are reasons to think that this ideology is still popular amongst the self-proclaimed elite class.
In direct answer to the question, I think the elites would prefer us to self-select our future slavery along the lines of BNW - we can have moral degeneracy (its already here!) drugs (ditto) and just do our epsilon/delta jobs. However, Orwell was right about the talking screens, and ultimately if we won't self-select our slavery there is a harder form soon available - Chinese credit scores (aka bio-medical-ids/crypto-wallets) which thanks to the technocracy we have been working hard to achieve (esp in IT), will mean some of us will be locked out of life in the system. So, its a mix of both visions.
[deleted]
Yes.
Newspeak in action in San Francisco.
https://abc7.com/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-crime-la...
Felon -> “justice-involved person”
Juvenile delinquent -> “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system”
Drug addicts -> “persons with substance abuse history”
Ex-cons > “formerly incarcerated”
https://abc7.com/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-crime-la...
Felon -> “justice-involved person”
Juvenile delinquent -> “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system”
Drug addicts -> “persons with substance abuse history”
Ex-cons > “formerly incarcerated”
Without getting into the validity of the rephrasing, the terms refer to different size groups. There might be better ways of defining the groups, but I assume the goal is to better reflect the target populations. If you don't define the sets properly, you end up with a tonne of special cases.
"convicted felon" is a smaller subset than a "justice-involved person". Felon implies "felony", which isn't the only type of individual they want to talk about (probably involving things like misdemeanors, diversions).
Same with "drug addicts". The new wording states that the person is seen to be using multiple times, but doesn't make a statement about whether or not they are addicted. They could just like drugs, without meeting the definition of addiction.
"ex-con"... you can be incarcerated without conviction (pre-trial, contempt).
With "Juvenile Delinquent", it's the other direction. Delinquent is a larger set than the new wording, the previous term includes miscreants who aren't in contact with the justice system.
"convicted felon" is a smaller subset than a "justice-involved person". Felon implies "felony", which isn't the only type of individual they want to talk about (probably involving things like misdemeanors, diversions).
Same with "drug addicts". The new wording states that the person is seen to be using multiple times, but doesn't make a statement about whether or not they are addicted. They could just like drugs, without meeting the definition of addiction.
"ex-con"... you can be incarcerated without conviction (pre-trial, contempt).
With "Juvenile Delinquent", it's the other direction. Delinquent is a larger set than the new wording, the previous term includes miscreants who aren't in contact with the justice system.
That's not newspeak because the quantity of vocabulary on the right is higher than it is on the left. The ability to express concepts with the words on the right is larger than on the left, whereas the point of newspeak is for it to be smaller.
The only point of newspeak is to hide the truth
The point of newspeak was to simplify the language to limit the ability to have complex thoughts or expression.
What if I told you the original buzzwords were more like newspeak than the detailed, albeit biased, explanation.
Oh come-on man, try to think at least one layer deep with the conspiracy stuff, obviously the lizards in control of the media want you to care about this stuff instead of geometric algebra.
[deleted]
That's not newspeak, the aim of which was to obviate and dumb down words.
This is more precise speak, it gives the actual definition instead of a broad term.
This is more precise speak, it gives the actual definition instead of a broad term.
wrnr(1)
1984 got it more correct. Take sometime to read or watch current China related stuff. It makes whatever we think oppressions done by western countries look pedantic. Huxley birth control might also play out in China if birth rate there still dropping way below what the state wants of 3 at the moment. Personally I feel, if the world was dominated by mainland Chinese and their influences or direct supremacy in some kind of marvel multiverse, then Huxley-Orwell fictions might be "unfictionized" there.
Doesn't mean you can't have a curious and thoughtful debate about Huxley and Orwell here, but I don't think the authors are really having one.