1984 vs Brave New World - How Freedom Dies

“If you want to have an image of the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face, forever.”   George Orwell,

1984

George Orwell's writings have seen a surge in popularity in recent decades, and for good reason: modern societies are increasingly resembling the dystopia Orwell described in his novel

1984

. Whether it's mass surveillance, the incessant use of propaganda, perpetual war, the manipulation of language or the cult of personality that surrounds political leaders, many consider Orwell's novel to be prophetic. While the West remains freer than the dystopian society of 1984, the trend toward concentrating more and more power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats does not bode well for those who favor a free society.

Orwell believed that the totalitarianism he portrayed in his novel was a distinct possibility for the West and at times went so far as to suggest that it might, in fact, be inevitable. Or as he himself wrote: "We are almost certainly entering an era of totalitarian dictatorships."    George Orwell, Complete Works – Volume XII In this video we will analyze the cause of Orwell's pessimism, focusing on two trends that increase the risk of a totalitarian future: the movement towards collectivism and the rise of hedonism. We then contrast Orwell's views with those of another author of dystopian fiction: Aldous Huxley.  Collectivism is a doctrine, central to several ideologies, in which the goals of a given collective, such as a state, a nation, a socioeconomic class, an ethnic group, or a society, take priority over the goals of individuals.

Socialism, communism, nationalism and fascism are all collectivist ideologies. Orwell believed that a precondition for the rise of totalitarianism was the widespread adoption of a collectivist mentality, and all totalitarian nations of the 20th century were organized on the basis of some form of collectivist ideology: in the Soviet Union and China it was communism, in Germany and Italy, fascism.   Orwell's view on the connection between totalitarianism and collectivism has proven puzzling, as Orwell was a staunch leftist, a critic of capitalism, and a socialist. How could someone who favored socialism, a collectivist ideology, simultaneously write a dystopian novel that portrays a collectivist society in such a horrible way?

To understand his position, one must first realize that Orwell did not consider capitalism to be a viable system, or as he explains: "It is not certain that socialism is in every way superior to capitalism, but it is true that, Unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption.” George Orwell, Complete Works – Volume of death and would soon be replaced by some form of collectivism. He considered this to be inevitable. The question for Orwell was what kind of collectivism would take its place.   “The real question... is whether capitalism, now obviously doomed, is going to give way to oligarchy or true democracy.” George Orwell, Complete Works – Volume XVIII After the death of capitalism, Orwell hoped that democratic socialism would emerge in the West.

Democratic socialists, like Orwell, advocated a centrally planned economy. the nationalization of all major industries and a radical decrease in wealth inequality. They were also strong advocates of civil liberties, such as

freedom

of speech and

freedom

of assembly, which they hoped could be maintained in a society that would largely deprive people of their economic freedoms.  The problem, however, that Orwell and other socialists had to face was the lack of examples, past or present, of any country that had successfully adopted democratic socialism. Furthermore, when a government liberates a population from its economic freedom, the destruction of civil liberties tends to occur.

Because a centrally planned economy is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement, so for a government to maintain power while parasitically mining the wealth and resources of a population, it must limit their ability to speak and protest. To make matters worse, all states that had turned to collectivism in the first half of the 20th century, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, adopted what Orwell called oligarchic collectivism, not democratic socialism.  Oligarchic collectivism is a totalitarian system in which a select minority, under the guise of a collectivist ideology, centralizes power through force and deception. Once in power, these oligarchs take away not only the economic liberties of their citizens, a measure that socialists like Orwell favored, but also their civil liberties.

Orwell was concerned that after the death of capitalism there was the possibility that the entire Western

world

would succumb to oligarchic collectivism. One of the main reasons for this fear was his recognition that hedonism was on the rise in the West and that a hedonistic population, according to Orwell, is a population ready to be taken over by totalitarians.   Hedonism is an ethical position that maintains that the ultimate goal of life should be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain and discomfort. In an increasingly urban and consumerist West, Orwell believed that many people were structuring their lives in hedonistic ways.

A hedonistic lifestyle, according to Orwell, weakens people, making them weak and incapable of resisting those who wish to rule a society by force. Or as David Ramsay Steele writes: “Orwell thinks that any group that indulges in hedonism must ultimately become easy fodder for fanatical ideological enemies, who are more self-sacrificing, more dedicated, and more ruthless. The true enemy is not the lover of pleasure but the fanatic who is against pleasure, and the former is conceived as defenseless against the latter.” David Ramsay Steele, Orwell Your Orwell The West, since Orwell's death in 1950, has become more hedonistic and most people have been indoctrinated to accept collectivism in one form or another, but this has not led to the permanent entrenchment of the oligarchic collectivism.

Rather, Aldous Huxley, author of another famous 20th century dystopian novel, Brave New World, may have better understood the way Western societies would become enslaved in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.   Huxley, like Orwell, was an antihedonist, but his aversion to hedonism differed from Orwell's. Huxley's main concern was that hedonism could be used as an effective tool to oppress a society because people would voluntarily give up freedom as long as their appetite for pleasure and consumption was satisfied. If a society is structured so that people can spend much of their time seeking pleasure, satisfying material needs, and even taking drugs to escape reality, then persuasion and conditioning, rather than coercive force, will be sufficient to exert extreme control over a society. society.

Under such conditions, most people will not even notice the chains of servitude that slowly tighten around them, or as Huxley wrote: "In Brave New World, continuous distractions of the most fascinating nature... are deliberately used. . for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation." Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited Neil Postman in his book Amused to Death, contrasts the different fears of Orwell and Huxley: " What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, because there would be no one who would want to read it...

Orwell feared that the truth would be hidden from us. drown in a sea of ​​irrelevance. Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture... In 1984, people control themselves by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they control themselves by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire would ruin us.” (Neil Postman)  Neil Postman, Amusing Himself to Death The West, it seems, finds itself in a situation analogous to that which Huxley feared. We live in a society that is drowning in distractions.

Most people spend more time looking at screens than interacting with real people, and taking prescription pills or self-medicating with alcohol or illicit drugs has become the normal way to cope with any form of distress. Most people still believe that the West is free and that the overt physical coercion that Orwell thought would be necessary to enslave a society has so far proven unnecessary. Through endless distractions, detours, and the easy availability of pleasurable and distracting experiences, many accept their lack of freedom and worship the society that has made their hedonistic lifestyle possible.   “Now the

world

is stable,” says the comptroller in Huxley's Brave New World. 'People are happy; “They get what they want and they never want what they can’t get.”   Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Before completely dismissing Orwell's fears, however, it should be noted that Orwell was familiar with Huxley's position and did not deny that the hedonistic society Huxley feared was a possibility.

But he saw it as a temporary stage that created ideal conditions for a more brutal regime to take control and impose its will on a society composed of weak and apathetic men and women. It remains to be seen whether Orwell will be proven right, but as was revealed in the early years of this decade, if a social crisis arises, most people will accept the more brutal form of totalitarianism that Orwell feared. So perhaps the only thing missing to permanently throw us into the dystopian world described in 1984 is another major social crisis.