Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is Orwell's ''1984'' a defamation of Stalin ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    ''... the face of Goldstein...
    Goldstein is an invented foreign scapegoat. Totally fictional, but serving ideological needs in diverting attention. I couldn't comment on O'Brien- a little too close.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by stalin View Post
      ...it wasn't love, it was ''...a battle, the climax of a victory. It was a blow struck against the party. It was a political act.''
      No. That's the satire: "If they could make me stop loving you - that would be the real betrayal.". And they did and the tots won. Tragic.
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by General Staff View Post
        Goldstein is an invented foreign scapegoat. Totally fictional, but serving ideological needs in diverting attention...
        still, to me goldstein is bronstein(trotsky):
        ''... the renegade and backslider who once, long ago
        (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading
        figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and
        then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned
        to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared...He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against
        the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations,
        sprang directly out of his teaching...Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party...He was abusing Big
        Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding
        the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom
        of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought,
        he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed--and all
        this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the
        habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak
        words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally
        use in real life
        ...''

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by General Staff View Post
          No. That's the satire: "If they could make me stop loving you - that would be the real betrayal.". And they did and the tots won. Tragic.
          because, there's no love other than that that Jesus Christ tried to teach us.
          it was not the ''tots'' that won, it was winston's pride that lost.
          love and pride are incompatible things.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by stalin View Post
            ...more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life...
            Exactly. An invented scapegoat.

            There are probably shades of distaste for totalitarian anti-semitism here also. After all societies in trouble often end up with leaderships that blame 'foreign' elements, and what easier targets to hand than internal ethnic minority/religion-based ones (or better both) to blame.
            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by stalin View Post
              1) Because, there's no love other than that that Jesus Christ tried to teach us.
              2) It was not the ''tots'' that won, it was Winston's pride that lost.
              3) Love and pride are incompatible things.
              1) I'd disagree, but he did set an impressive example (nice- miraculous even- to see your CAPS LOCK back on-line). If you haven't seen it already, watch Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of Christ'. It's in original Aramaic and Latin, so everyone suffers the same sub-titled handicap. If you need good, evil, cruelty, suffering or love defined, you cannot go wrong here.
              2) No. That's the satire: love and humanity lost. Winston is just a shell of a human unit. The 'tots' won. But you know it doesn't work like that, don't you?
              3) Yes. Except when you take pride in love.
              Last edited by General Staff; 18 Jun 07, 15:36.
              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                ... watch Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of Christ'...
                the movie lacks ''depth'' due to the direction/production team's attempts to make it look ''authentic''.
                those behind m.gibson managed to cram so many unnecessary details into it that totally got the main concept of the New Testament buried.
                obsessed with depiction of brutality, they overlooked the fact that the main point about Jesus is not his suffering, but his ideas.
                and the movie failed to convey them.

                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                ... That's the satire: love and humanity lost. Winston is just a shell of a human unit. The 'tots' won. But you know it doesn't work like that, don't you?
                well, sometimes it does work like that, sometimes it doesn't.

                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                ... Except when you take pride in love.
                i've always thought that love makes pride become redundant...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by stalin View Post
                  1) The movie lacks ''depth'' due to the direction/production team's attempts to make it look ''authentic''. Those behind Gibson managed to cram so many unnecessary details into it that totally got the main concept of the New Testament buried.
                  2) Obsessed with depiction of brutality, they overlooked the fact that the main point about Jesus is not his suffering, but his ideas. And the movie failed to convey them.
                  3) I've always thought that love makes pride become redundant...
                  1) Were we watching the same movie? I didn't see a single unnecessary detail in the context of what Gibson was trying to do. I thought it provided remarkable insight into those few days, particularly the 'behind the scenes' political machinations. And it depends what you regard as the 'main concept' behind the New Testament- the original and revolutionary (and largely anti-Roman) messages or the ones the Romans later co-opted for their own purposes.
                  2) You can't separate the ideas from the suffering, assuming you believe the original message. And to convey the suffering you have to show the brutality, which is one of the things he was protesting against to begin with. I never realized it was so atrocious until I saw this film.
                  3) Are you proud of your Christianity? Or your love of God?
                  Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                  (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                    ... it depends what you regard as the 'main concept' behind the New Testament...
                    the main concept behind the New Testament is that the humans have to stop to ''take away'' and instead - have to start to ''give away''.
                    also, humans have to stop to put up any kind of resistance to whatever evil.
                    finally, humans have to reach the stage where they release themselves from being a persons and eventually dissolve themselves in universe, thus - becoming part of it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by stalin View Post
                      The main concept behind the New Testament is that the humans have to stop to ''take away'' and instead - have to start to ''give away''. Also, humans have to stop to put up any kind of resistance to whatever evil. Finally, humans have to reach the stage where they release themselves from being a person and eventually dissolve themselves in universe, thus - becoming part of it.
                      I can see how with a tot-ist background you can reach these conclusions, especially the last where you subsume your individuality in the collective. But too big a topic for this thread.

                      I don't agree with you but I do forgive you.
                      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        winston thought it was ''big brother'' who opressed him.
                        so, o'brien took winston to room 101 and showed him that, in fact, it was winston's own personality that was too weak,
                        selfish and narrow-minded for allowing him to be free.

                        see, o'brien offered winston freedom in room 101.
                        but winston didn't use that chance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by stalin View Post
                          1) Winston thought it was ''Big Brother'' who oppressed him. So, O'Brien took Winston to Room 101 and showed him that, in fact, it was Winston's own personality that was too weak, selfish and narrow-minded for allowing him to be free.
                          2) See, O'Brien offered Winston freedom in Room 101.
                          but Winston didn't [take] that chance.
                          1) Debatable. Room 101 to me shows that every individual has a breaking point. And that a totalitarian society will always try to find it and use it in the interests of the collective. It will often or usually involve betrayal- as in 'him/her rather than me'. An efficient use of the collective's resources, since it is a 2 for 1 deal. I don't think weakness, selfishness or narrow-mindedness have much to do with it, since these are all human vices we all possess- it's just the point at which we crack that differs, and as O'Brien points out "varies from individual to individual".
                          2) If that's the "long-hoped-for bullet" Winston mentions, then the only true freedom is death- or insanity I suppose. Winston could have elected to run with the rats, but it wasn't realistically an option or 'chance' from a psychological point of view. Trapped in a tot-ist heaven- or hell.

                          All about how it's possible to break an individual in the interests of the collective. And how easy it can be, once you make the decision to work top-down from the collective as opposed to bottom-up from the individual.

                          "Under the spreading chestnut tree
                          I sold you and you sold me----"
                          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                            ... All about how it's possible to break an individual in the interests of the collective...
                            however, o'brien ''appealed'' to winston's ''individualism'' - and not ''collectivism''.
                            the bad form of ''collectivism'' represented in ''1984'' has its roots in ''individualism'' of those akin to winston.

                            then, let us study o'brien more closely.
                            as for me, i don't believe that he's a ''collectivist''.
                            moreover, i think o'brien doesn't give a damn about ''the interests of the collective''.

                            and after all, do the ''collectivists'' really exist ?
                            a collectivist states do exist.
                            moreover, all states in a world are more or less collectivist.
                            whereas - people, populating these states are doubtless ''individualists''.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Overseer View Post
                              Defamation? No.



                              A warning against Totalitarianism in all forms (Stalin being the best example at the time)? Definitely.
                              Exactly. 1984 may not have been an absolutely perfect picture of Soviet life, though pretty close I'd say, it was set as an example of what not to do. Brave New World certainly doesn't mirror San Francisco, even if it is pretty close ,but again it was a warning, like Farenheit 451.
                              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by stalin View Post
                                the ''katyn massacre'' was a collective decision.
                                stalin was just one of those who signed this document which didn't contain a direct implication of ''massacre''.
                                Sounds like lawyer work and accountability evasion. The fact that his hand wasn't the only hand does not clear him of wrongdoing.

                                You'll never convince me, or the victims of his purges, that the world isn't better off without him.



                                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X