gonepishing (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

man...so depressing, yet so possible

xXArawanXx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Exclusively, probably not but mostly yes. Eurasia is just a location, the ideology is the thing you need to focus on. Communism comes into power how? Promising more boots, more food and equality for all. Redistrubiton of wealth. The beginning of Ingsoc started out pure, then inner party members are expelled (aaronson, rutherford, etc) and one member rises to the top. This was the shift from Lenin to Stalin. The corruption was the Nazi party, leaving out communism nullifys the main message..

Rainstarhasastick (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'm aware it's not only about totalitarianism. I'm aware there's a lot about socialism and communism, it's very obvious considering Ingsoc etc. But you said this was based off of the Soviet Union, but again, that was Eurasia. So what I'M arguing is that, while Oceania is socialist, it was not based exclusively off of the Soviet Union, as you said it was.And that's misinterpretation, not corruption. To my knowledge, they're not the same thing.

xXArawanXx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You're getting too mixed up with geography and actual events. Parts of 1984 were written before and after WWII. Orwell predicted that the advocation of socialism/communism would become strong like after WWI. Orwell KNEW that communism eventually dissolved into oligarchy. You make the revolution to establish the dictatorship not the dictatorship to safeguard the revolution.Corruption because your making it only about totalitarianism, Marxism is the true warning, the dangers of "euthopia"...

Rainstarhasastick (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That makes sense. I'm wondering because I wasn't sure what you meant in context. =PBut back to the actual debate here...

xXArawanXx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Under the Nazi regime, most religions were acceptable but a few were deemed unacceptable or undesirable. Judaism (though it was more of a racial issue) deemed unacceptable and Catholicism was on a skirting edge (several anti-groups started inside the Church). In 1984 and Communism, ALL religions are unacceptable. And in the inner Nazi party, devil worship and occultism was kind of popular...

Rainstarhasastick (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(And just a side question, you said "Religion (the right kind)"... what did you mean? Is there a kind of religion that is determinably right? Or are you defining something like devil worship?)

Rainstarhasastick (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yes, but again, as told in the excerpt from Emmanual Goldstein's book - in 1984, the USSR forms the better part of Eurasia, not Oceania. Possibly Orwell thought totalitarianism would DEVELOP into socialism and greater oppression? USSR =/= Oceania.Explain how it's corruption... Again, I'm not disputing the message; whether it was based off the USSR or Nazi Germany, the warning is still essentially the same. We're not debating that. If anything, it would be misinterpretation, not corruption.

xXArawanXx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Following WWII a strong advocation for socialism came about. Orwell, correctly, predicted that people would once again advocate communism as an alternative. He was wrong about the amount of support, it was quelled almost instantly and the cold war began. The Nazi weren't socialists, they were faschists. Religion (the right kind) and trade were still for the most part free. Rationing only existed during the war vs all the time in the Soviet Union. (It is corruption...)

Rainstarhasastick (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You make a good argument, but you still missed an important part of my post. In the excerpt from Goldstein's book, I believe it's stated that Britain became part of Oceania when it erupted into civil war, directly after World War II. It was Eurasia that included USSR; Oceania is more based off of Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia.(And just btw, this is not "corruption of Orwell's warning." The warning is still the same either way, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing his target, not his message.)