Purging George Orwell's books misses what drives the political right
theloop.ecpr.eu
theloop.ecpr.eu
There is no political-right, it is an artifact of whatever these people are criticizing to destroy and rule over the ashes of, it means nothing. Specifically, it uses ideology to assign or project an othering counter-ideology on its enemies to manage them with further criticism. It's mesmerist gibberish all the way down.
That we need words at all to describe it is a fairly modern invention, because historically it was just evil trying to dissolve your society and enslave it, everyone saw it, and you just smote it for what it was.
In their own words, suffocate it from the oxygen of attention it needs to survive.
> it means nothing. Specifically, it uses ideology to assign or project an othering counter-ideology on its enemies to manage them with further criticism. It's mesmerist gibberish all the way down.
This exactly, I hope for opportunities to repeat as much.
(just an example; it really can be framed from pretty much any angle)
It's totally idiotic the state we have reached, with an absolutely equal number of stupid people on the left and the right.
I keep coming back to this article's whole framing around the "culture war." Maybe it's because I'm not sharp enough to fully follow what smart people are saying, but this piece feels less like thinking and more like its arguments are running wild. The article ends up repeating the very error of the identity politics it sets out to criticize. It takes aim at identity centered interpretation, yet its own argument sets up class and identity as rivals in a zero sum game.
On the mechanisms of imperialism that the article lays out, I think it overreaches. Yes, we need to examine how relative status security works, things like class anxiety fused with racial superiority and imperial citizenship, and how material class anxiety gets politically channeled through identity hierarchies like race, nation, nationality, and gender. That's a worthwhile line of inquiry.
But the article seems to be offering a reductive, first order causal explanation of imperialism. The main drivers of imperialism were numerous: interstate competition, capital accumulation, bureaucratic organization, and more. The notion that the metropolitan working class and lower middle class derived psychological compensation from imperial status looks less like a cause of imperialism and more like a legitimizing mechanism after the fact. I suspect the author is channeling Orwell's own perspective as a socialist here. If not, then the level of analysis is simply too shallow.
And can we really pin the rise of the modern far right on economic anxiety alone? I don't think so. Not everyone facing similar economic conditions turns to right wing populism. What matters is how political leaders, the media, the collapse of local industry, generation, education, the loss of cultural status, and the party system organize that anxiety into a particular political language.
Forces like MAGA are fundamentally rooted in the Bible Belt. Their lives are bound up with religious community, and they become right wing based on those values. In the end, it's a complex entanglement of cultural and geographical positioning. That said, I do agree that some political demagogues use cultural codes as fuel.
So honestly, I don't really know.
It's frustrating not being able to write logically in English, as if I've been muzzled. It's not my native language. But here's the core of it: even if we assume AI was behind the exclusion, we don't know the premise behind that decision. So how can anyone call it a "purge"? It could be an AI hallucination. Or maybe the AI judged that dystopian novels don't fit the modern context. Without any account of the process, I find it hard to follow the logic that just leaps straight to framing it as class warfare.
I think this is very clearly not the case. MAGA acts in direct opposition to christian values and Trump's actions demonstrate that he proudly rejects the teachings of Jesus. Whatever it is that attracts Christians to MAGA it isn't their religion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA
I agree with what you're saying, but personally, I think this is what the corruption of the Christian faith community looks like. Church communities may not actually take Jesus's teachings all that seriously, but they have Christian broadcasting, schools, the historical view that America is a Christian nation, and a sense of crisis about certain progressive ideas like abortion and such. At this point, I think Trump comes across not so much as a messiah but more as a kind of "warrior" for them. He has moral flaws, but he fights against the forces that are attacking us. In other words, the role of group protector takes priority over personal piety.
Historically speaking, whether a form of religion survives isn't determined solely by how pure it is, is it? In the end, it comes down to what kind of explanation it offers for the anxieties of life. First of all, I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of dismissing your Christian faith. I want to emphasize again that I agree with you that they are violating Christian values, and that devout believers like you are the ones suffering the consequences.
Every time real world communism fails, people say "that wasn't true communism." And every time Christian communities repeatedly support political forces that go against the teachings of Jesus, people say "it's not because of the religion." If we keep doing that, we end up arbitrarily severing the relationship between ideology and reality. Just as we call the state of the modern world the corruption of capitalism, I think the MAGA movement shows what happens when a Christian community follows the wrong shepherd.
First of all, I'm sorry if I unintentionally attacked your faith. But I also respect Jesus. He was a remarkable person. It's just that, as you know, I'm criticizing the act of leaving a stain on his name.
While ultimately Christianity is whatever its followers say it is, I think it's still worth calling attention to the clear contradictions. Not only out of acknowledgement/courtesy to those who really do try to follow the bible's teachings, but also on the off chance that it causes some MAGA supporter enough cognitive dissonance that they're forced to really think about what it is they've been supporting.
I see the same on HN when a topic about H1 B visas is posted. Going by comments on such posts Immigration seems to be fine as long as it is affecting blue collar work. The pitchforks are out when it concerns one's own job. Then they talk about quality of programmers, outsourcing companies, the process of H1B not being fair etc.
Makes me think that it's insecurity about finance and status, but not limited to a certain economic class.
> Populist parties frame migration as an economic and cultural threat. They blame migrants for problems ranging from crime to unemployment. And while social democratic parties are campaigning on ideological platforms, many voters still prioritise material security. Voting patterns suggest that class remains central.
This framing of the issue suggests that the issue is not real, while it could be a simple matter of people being worried about their financial well being and safety.
Consider the Pakistani Grooming gangs in UK with estimates suggesting up to 250,000 potential victims nationwide over several decades.
Many of the victims were young working class. Their plight was ignored so as not to antagonize a community. Dismissive attitudes towards victims: Many of the victims were working-class, vulnerable, or living in state care. Authorities often stigmatized them as "troubled" or "consenting," systematically ignoring their cries for help and failing to implement a child-centered approach.
As per BBC - Institutional paralysis: Police forces and local authorities lacked adequate training and suffered from severe bureaucratic dysfunction. In some instances, agencies viewed the gangs’ ethnic minority status and cultural backgrounds as "no-go" zones, allowing criminal networks to operate hidden behind the shield of "cultural sensitivities"
So to ensure that you are not being 'against migrants' created a situation that was hell for a lot of women.
We don't know if European Working class in other countries are seeing similar issues that happened in UK but were brushed under by the police and the British Media.
Let's not paint the working class as naive and just against migrants as 'seek inclusion through the exclusion of others."
The working class was not against migrants all along. If something changed, we should try to find out what the real issue is.
And even if they do, they won't understand what 1984's fuss is all about. Surveilance is normal. Censorship is what their parents have been doing since they were born. Simplified language is how the president talks. Historical events happening or not depends on who's youtube video they're viewing. There's nothing interesting in that book.
/s
His work house experiences informed 1984. The original poster in this comment thread is just trolling beyond belief, and also, seems to have no grasp of the topics at hand what so ever.
Also, Orwell was shot in the neck in Spain while literally fighting fascists.
Still, thank you for the link to Asimov’s review. I’ll read it later.
1984 was published in 1949. It's a bit harsh to expect him to have anticipated computers
1984 imagines a telecom-enabled nationwide panopticon, which made for good speculative fiction in the 50’s (and also does now). Asimov wishes he had been that prescient.
Asimov is missing an important point that is pretty clearly spelled out in the novel, and this severely weakens his critique. I find this pretty funny because he starts off the essay insinuating that others who claim to love the book haven’t read it. Same to you for hating it without having understood it, Asimov!
"To summarise, then: George Orwell in 1984 was, in my opinion, engaging in a private feud with Stalinism, rather that attempting to forecast the future."
He really got it!
And shows how fundamentally Asimov misunderstands how totalitarian societies work. "Furthermore, he has a system of volunteer spies in which children report on their parents, and neighbours on each other. This cannot possibly work well since eventually everyone reports everyone else and it all has to be abandoned"
I think our current world proves that being watched by humans hits people in a way that being monitored by computers doesn't. Remember those "Surveillance Camera Man" videos? You can see countless examples online of people freaking out at a human engaging in public photography because they filmed them or snapped a picture. Often they do it while standing directly under surveillance cameras. It doesn't matter to people if their ring camera is using facial recognition and logging everything within its field of view and secretly forwarding that data to law enforcement agencies, but try standing on the sidewalk in front of their house and recording everyone who comes and goes and see how they react.
A street photographer is a much smaller threat. What's the worst some random person on a public street can do with your photograph? Compare that with the harm that can be done by a massive corporation with billions at their disposal who has been building a dossier on you for decades and who records you 24/7 and is determined to use that data in any way that makes them profit regardless of what you want or what the law says.