Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
by
Emmanuel Goldstein
The term Oligarchical Collectivism refers to Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania, and to the ideologies of Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Death Worship (Obliteration of the Self) in Eastasia. Winston reads two long excerpts establishing how the three totalitarian super-states – Eastasia, Eurasia, Oceania – emerged from a global war, thus connecting the past to his present, the year 1984, and explains the basic political philosophy of the totalitarianism that derived from the authoritarian political tendencies manifested in the twentieth century. That the three, ostensibly opposing ideologies are functionally identical is the central revelation of The Book.[6]
Theoretically, Oligarchical Collectivism recalls the theory of bureaucratic collectivism put forth by some Trotskyists in the late 1930s as a description of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Oceania's principal enemy of the people, Emmanuel Goldstein, is modelled after Leon Trotsky, a former member of the inner circle of the Bolshevik Party whom Stalin purged and then declared an enemy of the people of the Soviet Union, the socialist state that Trotsky had helped found in Russia.[7] From exile, Trotsky criticised the social system of the Soviet Union.
Contents
"Chapter I: Ignorance is Strength", and "Chapter III: War is Peace" of The Book are titled with Party slogans; O'Brien later refers to chapters featuring a programme for deposing the Party. (Chapter II, presumably titled "Freedom is Slavery" after the remaining Party slogan, is not detailed in the novel.)
Chapter I
"Ignorance is Strength" details the perpetual class struggle characteristic of human societies;[8] beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers.
Ian Slater writes that Goldstein goes beyond George Orwell's beliefs in earlier work, such as A Clergyman's Daughter, in which the Middle makes a pretence of believing in equality. In Animal Farm, the state sought power to improve society, but once technological advances make equality possible, the Middle abandons their former promises, as socialism only stands in the way of their aims; they become explicitly tyrannical and openly hostile to equality. The new rhetoric of the Middle becomes Ingsoc and hierarchical collectivism. This pursuit of naked power, without any pretense of concern for equality, distinguishes the Party from previous tyrannies, though the Party initially justifies its control through dedication to socialism. By focusing on collectivism, the Party can consolidate their power and present Ingsoc as an inevitable followup to capitalism in which the Low are no longer exploited. In reality, the social castes are no longer necessary, and collectivism only serves to prolong the exploitation of the Low. Slater states that while O'Brien does not own his mansion, he still lives in luxury compared to the lower castes. Once the Party consolidates its power, all justifications are abandoned. The Party itself is a meritocracy, not hereditary. This is not rooted in egalitarianism but practicality, as the Party realizes that its continuation depends on purity of orthodoxy, rather than a bloodline.[9]
Unlike Orwell's prior writing, the Party's exploitation in this case is fully intentional. Slater writes that Orwell desired to show through the Party's unrealistic politics that modern authoritarianism was growing more lustful of power for power's sake. Orwell believed that modern states could bring about the desires of the Spanish Inquisition not only to control men but also to control their thoughts. This could be achieved through technological breakthroughs, such as the telescreen, a two-way television that allows continuous government surveillance of the population. Efficient use of such technology to control the populace requires centralisation, and the four ministries of Oceania – the Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love, and Plenty – fill this need.[10]
The Proles usually are not subject to propaganda. Instead, it is the middle class – the Outer Party – that the Inner Party fears. Because the Proles have lost everything and have nothing, they have no future. The Party, through the Ministry of Truth, practices historical revisionism, which robs the Proles of a past, too. Robbed of the ability to learn from history and the worries of the future, the Proles exist in a state of constant present and are incapable of revolution.[11] In order to prevent any unorthodoxy, the Ministry of Truth uses Newspeak, an impoverished language that makes heresy impossible by omitting words that could express it. Newspeak also reduces thought to simple opposites, such as good and "ungood", an intentional dichotomy that hides nuance and ambiguity while promoting black and white thinking. Party members are further subject to self-deceptive habits of mind, such as crimestop ("preventive stupidity"), which halts thinking at the threshold of politically dangerous thought, and doublethink, which allows simultaneously holding and believing contradictory thoughts without noticing the contradiction,[12] to wit:
... but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.[This quote needs a citation]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism
OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
by
Emmanuel Goldstein
The term Oligarchical Collectivism refers to Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania, and to the ideologies of Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Death Worship (Obliteration of the Self) in Eastasia. Winston reads two long excerpts establishing how the three totalitarian super-states – Eastasia, Eurasia, Oceania – emerged from a global war, thus connecting the past to his present, the year 1984, and explains the basic political philosophy of the totalitarianism that derived from the authoritarian political tendencies manifested in the twentieth century. That the three, ostensibly opposing ideologies are functionally identical is the central revelation of The Book.[6]
Theoretically, Oligarchical Collectivism recalls the theory of bureaucratic collectivism put forth by some Trotskyists in the late 1930s as a description of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Oceania's principal enemy of the people, Emmanuel Goldstein, is modelled after Leon Trotsky, a former member of the inner circle of the Bolshevik Party whom Stalin purged and then declared an enemy of the people of the Soviet Union, the socialist state that Trotsky had helped found in Russia.[7] From exile, Trotsky criticised the social system of the Soviet Union.
Contents
"Chapter I: Ignorance is Strength", and "Chapter III: War is Peace" of The Book are titled with Party slogans; O'Brien later refers to chapters featuring a programme for deposing the Party. (Chapter II, presumably titled "Freedom is Slavery" after the remaining Party slogan, is not detailed in the novel.)
Chapter I
"Ignorance is Strength" details the perpetual class struggle characteristic of human societies;[8] beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers.
Ian Slater writes that Goldstein goes beyond George Orwell's beliefs in earlier work, such as A Clergyman's Daughter, in which the Middle makes a pretence of believing in equality. In Animal Farm, the state sought power to improve society, but once technological advances make equality possible, the Middle abandons their former promises, as socialism only stands in the way of their aims; they become explicitly tyrannical and openly hostile to equality. The new rhetoric of the Middle becomes Ingsoc and hierarchical collectivism. This pursuit of naked power, without any pretense of concern for equality, distinguishes the Party from previous tyrannies, though the Party initially justifies its control through dedication to socialism. By focusing on collectivism, the Party can consolidate their power and present Ingsoc as an inevitable followup to capitalism in which the Low are no longer exploited. In reality, the social castes are no longer necessary, and collectivism only serves to prolong the exploitation of the Low. Slater states that while O'Brien does not own his mansion, he still lives in luxury compared to the lower castes. Once the Party consolidates its power, all justifications are abandoned. The Party itself is a meritocracy, not hereditary. This is not rooted in egalitarianism but practicality, as the Party realizes that its continuation depends on purity of orthodoxy, rather than a bloodline.[9]
Unlike Orwell's prior writing, the Party's exploitation in this case is fully intentional. Slater writes that Orwell desired to show through the Party's unrealistic politics that modern authoritarianism was growing more lustful of power for power's sake. Orwell believed that modern states could bring about the desires of the Spanish Inquisition not only to control men but also to control their thoughts. This could be achieved through technological breakthroughs, such as the telescreen, a two-way television that allows continuous government surveillance of the population. Efficient use of such technology to control the populace requires centralisation, and the four ministries of Oceania – the Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love, and Plenty – fill this need.[10]
The Proles usually are not subject to propaganda. Instead, it is the middle class – the Outer Party – that the Inner Party fears. Because the Proles have lost everything and have nothing, they have no future. The Party, through the Ministry of Truth, practices historical revisionism, which robs the Proles of a past, too. Robbed of the ability to learn from history and the worries of the future, the Proles exist in a state of constant present and are incapable of revolution.[11] In order to prevent any unorthodoxy, the Ministry of Truth uses Newspeak, an impoverished language that makes heresy impossible by omitting words that could express it. Newspeak also reduces thought to simple opposites, such as good and "ungood", an intentional dichotomy that hides nuance and ambiguity while promoting black and white thinking. Party members are further subject to self-deceptive habits of mind, such as crimestop ("preventive stupidity"), which halts thinking at the threshold of politically dangerous thought, and doublethink, which allows simultaneously holding and believing contradictory thoughts without noticing the contradiction,[12] to wit:
... but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.[This quote needs a citation]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism