BBC #8, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

THIS ENTIRE POST WILL PRETTY MUCH BE A SPOILER. If you're ok with that, keep reading.

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is one of the most thought provoking books I've read so far. I finished it today and since the moment I finished it, I've found myself contemplating what it says.

This book was first published in 1949 as a warning of where the world was headed if something didn't change. According to Orwell's "vision", we were headed for continuing World Wars (can't really blame him since the one he'd just come out of was the second in only a matter of decades) until 3 large totalitarianism states emerged. The nature of the wars would change, but it would continue indefinitely. These totalitarianism states would rule under the guise of "socialism" and protecting the people, but really be lead by the elite, power hungry, political leaders of the day simply as a means of achieving the ultimate power--complete control of human thought. As is written near the end of the book "Power is God." These leaders didn't care one whiff about the people in their countries. They simply cared about becoming "gods."

The main character in the book is a man named Winston Smith. My guess is the name Winston came from Winston Churchill as the character was supposedly born in the late 1940's, right after WWII. Smith is simply the most common last name. In other words, he's a normal man named after one of the most influential exponents of freedom during his time. Winston, like his namesake, is a believer in freedom. The novel follows his discoveries of lies and untruths behind the totalitarian party (Ingsoc), his search for freedom, and his ultimate failure.

I have several problems with the positions Orwell takes in the book, however many of these issues are derived from the fact I'm reading this book in 2011 (17 years after the story "happened"), not in 1949 when it was written (34 years BEFORE it "happened"). For example, in the countries that make up the fictional "Oceania", there is a far greater middle class than is depicted in the book. The book depicts an upper elite--the Inner Party, a middle class--the outer party, and the lower class--the proles (proletarians). The Proles make up 85% of the population. They are the uneducated, the poor, the ones who do the basic jobs of society. Going back to original Roman usage, and supported by statements made by Orwell ("the woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart, and a fertile belly"), The proles were the nothings of society. They had nothing to offer but menial labor and a continuous supply of new children to grow up and become more proles.

In today's society, in America, and in Britain where the book is based, the poor of the poor--the true proletarians--are a rather small percentage of the population. It's only by expanding the word proletarian to include the working class, as Marx did, that we come even close to that number. Still, the middle class is larger than the book says, making the number of proletarians smaller--and most of these proletarians are fairly well educated. If all of the working class of today is included as proletarians then Orwell's assumption that the proletarians don't have the consciousness to rise up is false. However, the level of education that existed for the lower class in 1949 is completely different. Also, more "middle class" (intellectual, not manual labor) jobs have been created since that time due to increases in technology.

"If there is hope it lies in the proles".

Unlike the end of the book concludes, I agree with Winston's statement. The proletarians, the working class, are truly where the hope of society springs from. The elite do not "hope" for change. Change may take them out of their seats of power. The middle class may dream of change, but they are generally content enough to not force a change. They have "enough". It's the people on the bottom, the people who have nothing that will make the changes.

Of course Orwell didn't have past experiences showing him the hope the proles themselves offered. He hadn't seen the Berlin Wall fall. He hadn't seen the Soviet Union collapse. Why did these nations do that? Because the proles had enough.

Another good example is what's happened in the middle east lately. First Tunisia, then Egypt and now Libya. The proles have had enough. And they're fighting for themselves.

Unlike the books statements, my fear isn't that the proles won't ever stand up for themselves. It's that the proles will take their cause too far. We don't need another French Revolution.


**Edit August 31, 2011: So, most of this was written on June 25, 2011. I finished the book and felt crazy motivated to write it. Then I got tired, didn't know how to finish and put it aside for later. And forgot. Until today. I finally decided to post it. Since I'm probably going to finish another book in the next few weeks, I figured I'd get this out before I forget I read it!!