I’m confused by this post but I’m not sure if that is because of vocabulary or actually disagreement (and whether that disagreement is about Orwell or the world).
First, I don’t agree that “dictatorships are stable forms of government” has seeped into our consciousness. I mean, maybe it is the case for people who just read the book. But in the field of international relations it is practically a truism that dictatorships are unstable. Much of American foreign policy thought consists of worrying about what will happen when this or that dictators dies, loses control over his military or faces popular revolt. And there are tons of explanations for why democracies are so stable, see “Democratic Peace Theory”.
Second, Orwell’s Oceania wasn’t a dictatorship. There was a central figure—“Big Brother”—but it turned out Big Brother was long gone, if he had ever existed at all. Totalitarian, authoritarian and oligarchical—yes, but it isn’t clear it is a dictatorship. This is relevant because Orwell’s prediction wasn’t actually about the number of people with power: it was about power as a force which could control and produce all human activity. It was a warning about totalitarianism more than anything else.
Lots of dictatorships aren’t especially totalitarian. They might seek to have total control over their country, but don’t come anywhere close to achieving it. Such regimes are unstable and Orwell wouldn’t say otherwise. What Orwell foresaw were increases in the ability of rulers to have complete power over their people and an interest in gaining that power.
Also, presumably he was not actually predicting their inevitability but warning of the possibility of an oligarchical totalitarian government that could rule eternally. And it seems odd to take an outside view about a detailed inside view argument. Like, Orwell showed how Oceania would be stable in perpetuity not how every dictatorship would.
In general, it seems like you are taking one famous quote and giving in an astonishing degree of influence over political discourse while not actually considering a) how people really think about government or b) the context in which the quote was produced.
Like, Orwell showed how Oceania would be stable in perpetuity not how every dictatorship would.
Well, to be more precise, Orwell imagined how Oceania might be stable in perpetuity. That doesn’t mean his imagination was an accurate representation of a society that could really exist.
First, I don’t agree that “dictatorships are stable forms of government” has seeped into our consciousness.
It’s very prevalent with many people I’ve been talking to.
In general, it seems like you are taking one famous quote and giving in an astonishing degree of influence over political discourse while not actually considering a) how people really think about government or b) the context in which the quote was produced.
I’m using one quote to illustrate a belief that seems somewhat prevalent. I think Orwell is the most influential of the dictatorship-eternal dystopia works, but there’ve been a lot of others.
I’m confused by this post but I’m not sure if that is because of vocabulary or actually disagreement (and whether that disagreement is about Orwell or the world).
First, I don’t agree that “dictatorships are stable forms of government” has seeped into our consciousness. I mean, maybe it is the case for people who just read the book. But in the field of international relations it is practically a truism that dictatorships are unstable. Much of American foreign policy thought consists of worrying about what will happen when this or that dictators dies, loses control over his military or faces popular revolt. And there are tons of explanations for why democracies are so stable, see “Democratic Peace Theory”.
Second, Orwell’s Oceania wasn’t a dictatorship. There was a central figure—“Big Brother”—but it turned out Big Brother was long gone, if he had ever existed at all. Totalitarian, authoritarian and oligarchical—yes, but it isn’t clear it is a dictatorship. This is relevant because Orwell’s prediction wasn’t actually about the number of people with power: it was about power as a force which could control and produce all human activity. It was a warning about totalitarianism more than anything else.
Lots of dictatorships aren’t especially totalitarian. They might seek to have total control over their country, but don’t come anywhere close to achieving it. Such regimes are unstable and Orwell wouldn’t say otherwise. What Orwell foresaw were increases in the ability of rulers to have complete power over their people and an interest in gaining that power.
Also, presumably he was not actually predicting their inevitability but warning of the possibility of an oligarchical totalitarian government that could rule eternally. And it seems odd to take an outside view about a detailed inside view argument. Like, Orwell showed how Oceania would be stable in perpetuity not how every dictatorship would.
In general, it seems like you are taking one famous quote and giving in an astonishing degree of influence over political discourse while not actually considering a) how people really think about government or b) the context in which the quote was produced.
Well, to be more precise, Orwell imagined how Oceania might be stable in perpetuity. That doesn’t mean his imagination was an accurate representation of a society that could really exist.
It’s very prevalent with many people I’ve been talking to.
I’m using one quote to illustrate a belief that seems somewhat prevalent. I think Orwell is the most influential of the dictatorship-eternal dystopia works, but there’ve been a lot of others.