I'm wondering: where is the new George Orwell? Why aren't all writers writing about this? Clearly we need a new 1984, because we didn't learn anything from the original.
I doubt a book would make much difference. Something with more mass appeal, like a movie or TV show maybe. But it's still a long shot IMHO.
Or you know, we could vote those people out of office. We keep bashing those clueless politicians but we did put them here in the first place. We don't even have the excuse of dictatorship.
This tendency around these parts to look for technical solutions (tor, bitcoin, etc...) for political problems is very saddening.
Assuming most of the readers of HN come from democratic countries, we shouldn't have to fear our government. No amount of openSSL will fix that problem.
> Or you know, we could vote those people out of office. We keep bashing those clueless politicians but we did put them here in the first place. We don't even have the excuse of dictatorship.
The sad truth is that politics is basically a marketing game. Whoever pours the most money into ads and campaigning has the best chance of winning [1]. There aren't enough people who care enough to do their own research to make a real difference
The old joke: "Don't vote, it only encourages them" has been on the wall of London's Anarchist Bookshop for years. Sadly, the false dichotomy of American politics, the corrupt buying of candidates and parties there and in most places, a lack of desire of anyone who wants to be a politician to rock any boat and make lasting structural change means that sometimes you need to do more than just play the fixed game with already loaded dice, where the prize doesn't really do much for you anyway.
I'm working on several strategies in this space. Perhaps we should gather some constructive conspirators.
See, that sounds jailworthy already, even though it's in the spirit of opening up debate, discourse and emancipation...
>If enough people do that, he might accidentally get elected.
Alternatively, if no one voted, the corrupt bastards couldn't legitimately claim power.
This is a serious flaw in our current implementation of "democracy". If you don't vote for the two /three main parties (who are all neocons anyway), you are effectively ignored. People argue vote, or not to vote, but in the end whatever either of these options will be ignored.
In some elections, inquorate elections do not stand, and a re-election is required. This would be a good idea, but is unlikely to happen.
In some places (notably Australia) government feels legitimated by compulsory voting (even fr expats). I don't know the sanctions for not voting, but voting turnout there is high.
> Or you know, we could vote those people out of office. We keep bashing those clueless politicians but we did put them here in the first place. We don't even have the excuse of dictatorship.
Yeah, but do you really think Labour would be any better? Both parties seem so scared of the Mail and the Telegraph that they'll do anything to look tough on crime. Thinking about it, is this the inevitable result of an aging population?
I'm not from the UK, I was talking in general. It's terrible that we come to consider the government the enemy when we're the one who are supposed to put them here.
Maybe the next series of Black Mirror will have something that covers these things more specifically? I think it's covered some very interesting concepts already.
Orwell's thoughts and writing were shaped by his experiences of the British public school [1] system, serving in the colonial police service, living as a homeless person in Paris and London, fighting on the republican side in the Spanish civil war, and (late in his life) seeing how the second world war played-out. These experiences honed his conscience and anger.
It's hard to imagine people who have lived similar lives now (maybe a minimum-wage warehouse worker from South London who went to fight with the rebels in Syria and came home wounded) believing that society can be changed in useful ways by writing fiction.
And if they did, and they became a threat to power, the daily mail would probably destroy them fairly quickly. Different times.
[1] In the UK, "public schools" are mostly what everyone else on the planet calls private schools.
> Orwell's thoughts and writing were shaped by his experiences of the British public school [1] system, serving in the colonial police service, living as a tramp in Paris and London, fighting on the republican side in the Spanish civil war, and (late in his life) seeing how the second world war played-out. These experiences honed his conscience and anger.
I disagree. I'm sure education and lifestyle was important in shaping Orwell's world-view, but I believe that he was inspired by the Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and not by the Spanish civil war or his schooling years.
He witnessed first-hand how totalitarian governments operate and a possible future outcome. A book that played a major role in his understanding of the Soviet Union was Darkness at Noon[1] by Arthur Koestler written in 1940, a book which gives an insight view of the Moscow Trials[2] in 1938. Orwell's 1984 was published in 1949.
I agree that Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were certainly major inspirations for his writing 1984 and Animal Farm. But those are just his best-known works.
They don't really explain, for example, why he voluntarily lived as a homeless person before writing Down and Out in Paris and London, or his feelings about the plight of working people that motivated the writing of The Road to Wigan Pier. Its also worth noting that in Spain he was fighting against Franco's fascists in the mid-30s because he could already see where that belief system leads.
Orwell's experience of private education resulted in his strong views about the role of class and privilege in British society at the time - concerns which are arguably still relevant today. His time in the colonial Burmese Police led him to say, in The Road to Wigan Pier, that "I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear". It would be interesting to speculate on what he would think of UK foreign policy after 9/11.
Orwell was a social critic. In the context of the issues raised Monbiot's article and the question about a "new Orwell", anyone who was successfully taking on that role would be doing more than just writing cautionary tales about possible future totalitarian dystopias.
> I disagree. I'm sure education and lifestyle was important in shaping Orwell's world-view, but I believe that he was inspired by the Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and not by the Spanish civil war or his schooling years.
His experience of the Communist party and the infighting on the Republican side during the Spanish civil war was a massive influence, though.
To further clarify, a tramp is someone who travels around but works only if/when he has to, a hobo is someone who travels around mainly looking for work and a bum is someone who does neither.
This is news to me, but a neat distinction. American English, I presume, since the latter two are unknown in English usage, unless they've just become archaic and associated only with American (see "soccer"). I suspect these nuances have been lost to most, but then that's a common problem in modern usage.
We don't really see tramps anymore in the UK. Your definitions are correct. A tramp is someone who is always on the move. We saw lots of them after the two world wars in the UK, as conscripted traumatised ex servicemen returned home. I'd imagine in the USA to see a few Vietnamese War veterans to be tramps now.
About twenty years ago, while day-hiking in the southern part of the Peak District, I got talking to a guy who was walking the same section of road as me. He was pretty shabbily dressed and his shoes were worn-out, and he said he was walking from (I think) Birmingham to Carlisle to stay with his brother because he had no money and nowhere to live. He told me he was keeping away from towns and sleeping in forests and barns. All his possessions were stuffed into the pockets of his coat. We walked a couple of miles together and he seemed like a nice guy.
Not exactly a "gentleman of the road" with a spotted-hanky-bundle on a stick, but the nearest I've seen to an archetypal tramp. I hope he made it.
I originally used the word "tramp" because (from memory) that was the word Orwell used to describe himself in Down and out in Paris and London; corresponding to the meaning described at [1]. I was aware that it is considered pejorative, but not the different meaning in US English.
Also, just to confuse things, in Scotland they are generally called "private" schools and are extremely popular in some places - Edinburgh has 25% of kids attending private schools.
There's one coming this year. Can't necessarily claim Orwell's talent, but having taught with a professor who made this very point a couple of years back, I've been working on a sociopolitical novel on this specific topic (with bells on) since then on and off and now it's getting into shape. The autumn's events (Brand v newsnight, NSA) have for me been very encouraging in demonstrating that I've not just been barking up my own tree.
Charles Stross (cstross on HN), Cory Doctorow and Ken MacLeod off the top of my head. They're nowhere near as prophetic as George Orwell as modern governments are becoming totalitarian police states too quickly to keep up with.
Sure, I think I was referring to time scale rather than accuracy. cstross in particular complained on twitter recently that plot elements of novels he's working on annoyingly started to appear in the headlines.
I'm not sure the fault lies with Orwell rather than with us.
Orwell showed us a world where rampant socialism, statism, lack of individual liberties, twisting of language for political means, and widespread unaccountable surveillance led to a horrific dystopia. People read the book and people agreed that it was something best to be avoided. But at every opportunity people have flinched away from the example of 1984. People have said "oh, but this socialism is the good kind, it's different", they said "this statism isn't that kind of statistm", and "it's only a small limitation of liberty in exchange for valuable improvements in safety", and "these changes to language are in service to a greater good", and so on, and so on. Then we get to widespread, unaccountable surveillance by the state and suddenly everyone starts shouting about 1984 and wondering how things could possibly have gotten so bad without anyone noticing.
Lots of people have been noticing, but even more people have been ignoring, or excusing.
That's a very creative interpretation of Orwell's work. You do realise that he was very much a socialist and that much of his work was inspired by his socialism, right?
Not many are willing to go against the atomistic monoculture, as it would break many liberal ideals held since the enlightenment. There is a case against nanny-state policies in Nassim Taleb's Antifragile, but not sure if it's close to what you mean.
idk, what I'm reading in this article is that it's basically going back in time, i.e. before 1984 where the rich could afford having gated communities.
