dillrepair t1_it8iahb wrote
Reply to comment by INTHEMIDSTOFLIONS in Does 1984 ever dive into how the Party took control over Oceania? [no direct spoilers please] by INTHEMIDSTOFLIONS
It seems to me that Orwell wanted it to be deliberately vague and let readers allow their understanding of recent events and horrors to creep in. Just the way that hitler and fascism had crept in.. 1949 originally published just for instant context. So it’s yes and no… AND imo most importantly that it could happen anywhere. Of course this is all just speculation on my part but it seems logical. Anyway it’s one of my favorite books ever… and I still remember the first time I read it at 18 and my mind was blown… and I couldn’t stop reading the last 3rd of the book… even though it was 1am…. I had that pit of the stomach feeling but couldn’t stop. It’s only happened a handful of times reading.
PuckSR t1_it91xid wrote
The biggest generational divide between boomers and millennials I've noticed is the "The third wave experiment".
Millennials all learned in school that fanatical authoritarian govts can appear anywhere.(1984, McCarthyism, Nazism, The Third Wave experiment movie, etc) Heck, they even use USA McCarthyism as an example of it almost happening in the USA. Boomers just learned that Nazis were evil scum and it clearly must have been because of the moral failings of the German people.
This also drives a lot of the "Trump=Hitler" debate. When a millenial says that Trump is acting like Hitler, they mean that Trump is using a lot of the same populist tactics that Hitler used. When a boomer hears that comment, they assume that the person is trying to simply say Trump is evil. It leads to numerous thanksgiving day arguments where some old Uncle tries to lecture the young kids about how Trump isn't trying to murder anyone.
1984 was an attempt to highlight the concept for the boomer generation, but I think many of them missed the message.
edit:expanded on the initial idea
PaxNova t1_it95cu2 wrote
The evil bit is kind of implied, don't you think? Nobody says "That boy likes painting... like Hitler!"
I think it would go a lot better if populism were only used by one side. There have been a number of "populist" candidates, so clearly populism wasn't the comparison they were going for.
PuckSR t1_it96a7g wrote
The implication is that a Hitler-esque populist movement can quickly turn violent and ugly. See "the third wave".
It isn't just the populism, but using the same levers and toolbox as Hitler. Nationalism, patriotism, populism aren't necessarily bad, but if you use them the way Hitler used them? If you create a cult of personality around yourself, invoke a mythical (and non-existent) past glory to which we should return? If you single out groups as scapegoats? Blame modern culture for all of the problems?
Now you aren't just a populist. You are basically borrowing Hitler's playbook.
PaxNova t1_it9b54r wrote
Up voted. I just wish the comparison hadn't been used on every conservative. In particular, the Remain in Mexico policy (holding people who want to get into the country while they're being checked) has been likened to death camps (corralling people who want to leave the country so we can enslave and murder them). At this point, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.
To someone who wants no hierarchy, any hierarchy is indistinguishable from a fascist hierarchy. The further left you go, the more everything becomes Hitler.
PuckSR t1_it9btet wrote
But the comparison is somewhat apt. Hitler used "Jews, gays, and communists" as his scapegoats. While Trump used "the politically correct woke mob, the mexicans, etc" as his scapegoats.
Both Hitler and Trump threw out a ton of legislation without any explicit policy behind it with the intent of attacking those groups with which they disagreed.
I get your concern, but I dont exactly remember a lot of people saying that Bush was acting like Hitler.
PaxNova t1_it9h6i5 wrote
This is a list of the big ones, and it handily includes a reference to calling Obama Hitler, too, lest it be forgotten how trivial the comparison needs to be to bring him up by either party. There was also an ad campaign about Bush being Hitler from MoveOn.org.
In short, starting a foreign war means you're Hitler.
PuckSR t1_it9isv9 wrote
But those attacks seem to all be Hitler=evil type.
PaxNova t1_it9kona wrote
Exactly. Hence my "boy who cried Wolf" comparison.
I think we're agreeing, but I'm also saying that it's been used to imply evil so long that it has lost meaning as an actual, historical example. One could easily say, "He endorses federal PSAs, like Hitler," and people would think you're against PSAs rather than just noting a historical fact. It sets the tone as automatically hostile. Hostile people, in politics, tend towards bias. Nobody wants to listen to them (unless they share the bias). It is ineffective to make the comparison in nearly all cases.
PuckSR t1_it9p714 wrote
We are agreeing, but I am trying to make the point that "crying wolf" would have been appropriate if it had been saved for Trump.
Additionally, I think that some of the older generation could NEVER see it as appropriate because unless the person is advocating for the extermination of an entire race, then they are nothing like Hitler
Alemusanora t1_it99h7m wrote
McCarthyism was trying to stop an authoritarian govt in the form of communism. Going back and reading actual updated unbiased history has shown McCarthy was dead on right.
PuckSR t1_it9aggb wrote
Going back and reading, we can see that McCarthy violated the civil rights of hundred of Americans.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says you can punish someone for their political ideology, and quite a lot in the Constitution that forbids the govt from punishing someone for their political ideology.
honeybadger1984 t1_it8yh3j wrote
Same. It’s great as a horror book, especially to young readers.
When I read it as a youth it really destabilized my concept of government. It’s not permanent and people can get desperate and give themselves to fanaticism. Even regular people can decide to give fascism a try.
lookmeat t1_it9882f wrote
It's more than that. If something has a beginning, then you can deduce there's a before. If there's a before this means that things can change.
The party is trying to erase its beginning to make itself appear eternal, as the only ways things could ever be. It wasn't deliberately vague to let people imagine. It's part of the political agenda of the party to rewrite human nature to ensure it can't be removed.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments