Back in Oceania, at which in fact the publication, the most ideology of English socialism, keeping merely a strictly traditional romantic relationship with Marxism, by which it originated. All Around the destroy, the shortage, the banning pleasure and novelty. The provisions include and whistleblowing. To keep up General manager of job of many ministries: the Ministry of really like joins together with repression and surveillance, Ministry of serenity salary war, even the Ministry of a great deal poisoning visitors to departure, the Ministry of facts conducts propaganda, and always participated in falsification of records, shifting days gone by. At Cover of the beast is Big brother. The major enemy of this country Emmanuel Goldstein, replicated.
The most important personality Winston Smith the final that knew that the inferiority with this particular system. But, their incipient rebellion leads to tears for Smith for 2 years because always being observed, whilst playing with “cat and mouse”. At the dungeons of this Ministry of love, both equally are emotionally broken up.
Shades of lies
“The tale is a lie, so it hint good fellows a lesson. You do not build your awful socialism will only do what was described above.” Such a conclusion about the time to do it after reading the novel. It because the works were created as an element of anti-Communist propaganda in the years of the cold war.
I am not a Stalinist or a zealous fan, but because the degree of absurdity and slander in “1984” as an epic, otherwise do not call, but now I have a thankless mission to protect Stalin and the Union.
“Socialist” Orwell here and there throughout the novel about the destruction of capitalism. They say, as it may be bad with him to live still better. For Winston Smith capitalist the past becomes a kind of “lost Paradise” and the dictates of the party was not, and freedom were, and even good things were made. Alas, the reality is in contradiction with the speculation of Orwell.
Especially funny to read the fragments describing the poverty and devastation in the Oceania. Despite the fact that Orwell himself could not know by 1949, the Union, against all odds, like a Phoenix has risen from the ruins left by the great Patriotic war. It is undeniable that in the social. countries had problems with the range of products of light industry, places existed illegally selling things. But a core set of products allows you to maintain a high level of life especially coupled with a developed social security.
Cause resentment and those episodes where the author describes backward science, mass artificially created ignorance and degraded culture. There is already the time to talk about the hyperbole, not the distortions, and blatant outright lies. It is a pity that Mr. Orwell did not live to April 12, 1961 I wonder what would he say then about the “decaying” social science?
And what can I say the Union overcame the age old ignorance, have created dozens of written languages for peoples who didn’t have them at all. The evil Bolsheviks began the cultural form of the proletarian mass, and “low” art of the “totalitarian” era still is a kind of benchmark. This, incidentally, has formed a special type of person. How would Orwell have not described the angry and disparate citizens of Oceania, even opponents of the left are forced to admit today that citizens of socialist countries were distinguished by humanity and benevolence.
No less remarkable arguments about the lack of freedom and total control. With a trembling pen writes about the prison, the concentration camps and other charms of totalitarianism, Orwell somehow forgets about a few moments. First, concentration camps were not invented by the not the Germans they were created by fellow author of the novel. Moreover, while he wrote the libel, the British military is massively tortured and killed by Greek Communists (what irony!) not worse than the Nazis somewhere in Buchenwald. Secondly, all the “socialist” Orwell somehow forgets that any totalitarian state has essentially because it is the instrument of domination of the upper classes over the lower.
Putting the sign of identity between communism and despotism, explicitly chastising the Union, the author somehow fails to notice that moves to a policy of double standards. How, for example, in the United States in the twentieth century eradicated all dissent, can be read in a series of articles Henry. Finally, is it right to expose whistleblowing and brainwashing ideology when you are and brainwasher?