3 ms·

I feel like the structural parable of Nineteen Eighty-Four is often missed in comparative analysis of the book. The social order of IngSoc did not place everyon

by scythe 5y ago

I feel like the structural parable of Nineteen Eighty-Four is often missed in comparative analysis of the book. The social order of IngSoc did not place everyone under strict supervision. Only the "Outer Party" members were so pursued. This does bear an unsettling resemblance to the state of party discipline in this country. Whether it's Adam Kinzinger, Tulsi Gabbard, Mitt Romney or Bernie Sanders, intraparty dissidents are increasingly strung up in public as an example to the rest.

mbg721 5y ago
It's been a while since I read 1984, but I had thought "Outer Party" was a description of social class that encompassed far more than partisan candidates for office like the ones you mentioned--you had to be in at least the Outer Party to have any job important enough to influence public opinion.
zozbot234 5y ago
Real world single-party systems are just the opposite, in way - at least when they're not at their most dysfunctional. One perk of joining the party is apparently that you are trusted to explore mildly "dissident" ideas for your own benefit, and even discuss them among party members in a quasi-democratic way, without this being considered "rocking the boat".
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >One perk of joining the party is apparently that you are trusted to explore mildly "dissident" ideas for your own benefit, and even discuss them among party members in a quasi-democratic way, without this being considered "rocking the boat". Consistent with the perks the nomenklatura had in the Soviet Union, including being able to obtain Western and rationed goods at special stores. The intellectual permissiveness extended to the highest ranks. Stalin was probably the most powerful man on Earth during his lifetime, but even he didn't always get his way in the Politburo. Sometimes Stalin was on the losing side of a debate. But win or lose, the Soviet leadership emphasized speaking with a unified voice regardless of whether one had supported or opposed the outcome.

by scythe 5y ago

mbg721 5y ago

It's been a while since I read 1984, but I had thought "Outer Party" was a description of social class that encompassed far more than partisan candidates for office like the ones you mentioned--you had to be in at least the Outer Party to have any job important enough to influence public opinion.

zozbot234 5y ago

Real world single-party systems are just the opposite, in way - at least when they're not at their most dysfunctional. One perk of joining the party is apparently that you are trusted to explore mildly "dissident" ideas for your own benefit, and even discuss them among party members in a quasi-democratic way, without this being considered "rocking the boat".

TMWNN 5y ago
>One perk of joining the party is apparently that you are trusted to explore mildly "dissident" ideas for your own benefit, and even discuss them among party members in a quasi-democratic way, without this being considered "rocking the boat". Consistent with the perks the nomenklatura had in the Soviet Union, including being able to obtain Western and rationed goods at special stores. The intellectual permissiveness extended to the highest ranks. Stalin was probably the most powerful man on Earth during his lifetime, but even he didn't always get his way in the Politburo. Sometimes Stalin was on the losing side of a debate. But win or lose, the Soviet leadership emphasized speaking with a unified voice regardless of whether one had supported or opposed the outcome.