Political Stability of the 1984verse

[Junghalli]

If there is an artificial global war according to Goldstein's book, kept under control through extreme, comical arms treaties, that still leaves too many variables if there are two big superstates out there who are more likely to employ more economic and scientific innovations to gain advantage. Even if they are authoritarians similiar to Oceania, they wouldn't necessarily be puritanical and relentlessly invasive enough like Ingsoc to indoctrinate their citizens with a mentally limited language.

The Goldstein Book seemed to imply strongly that the three superstates were basically little more than different tentacles of the same regime.

[Guardsman Bass]

Doesn't O'Brien also say that Goldstein's book was an example of doublethink, in that he wrote the objective truth of the situation while also double-thinking and believing that it was false and what the Party said was true? That would seem to hint that the situation outside of Airstrip One is at least an approximation of what is happening (or it represents the limits of even the Inner Party's understanding of the situation).

[Patrick Degan]

Doesn't O'Brien also say that Goldstein's book was an example of doublethink, in that he wrote the objective truth of the situation while also double-thinking and believing that it was false and what the Party said was true? That would seem to hint that the situation outside of Airstrip One is at least an approximation of what is happening (or it represents the limits of even the Inner Party's understanding of the situation).

The problem is that O'Brien could be lying as part of the method to break Winston by demoralisation. Or that the objective truth of Goldstein's book is not the general global situation but the statements regarding the underlying purposes of the war and the ministries, as well as the political condition of Oceania.

[Big Orange]

The Goldstein Book seemed to imply strongly that the three superstates were basically little more than different tentacles of the same regime.

Even so that means the entire system is more vastly overstretched than originally believed, and a idelology that encourages abject cruelty, hypocrisy, violence, and ignorance as core principles cannot (should not) survive for more than five decades. What about the different militaries locked in a extended 'false' war where they're heavily constrained by WWI to WWII technology and tactics, even though they're stratigically limited what if an ambitious general/admiral decided to steam back to Airstrip One and depose the moribund Inner Party? How could the Thought Police heavily influence Ingsoc's army and navy out in the field? Later on in WWII the Soviet commissars had rather less teeth when the Red Army was doing more its own thing.

[Aranfan]

To drift slightly off topic, reading 1984 has made Ruin, an antagonist of the Mistborn series, a hell of a lot scarier.

[Pelranius]

At the risk of revisiting previous points, how would the regime deal with catastrophic disasters like an asteroid hit?

I don't think that they would have the technology to do anything about it and any such disruption of that scale would probably ruin the Thought Police's surveillance systems into at least temporary ineffectiveness, with both immediate and lasting effects on the stability of the Oceanic social system.

[Alferd Packer]

At the risk of revisiting previous points, how would the regime deal with catastrophic disasters like an asteroid hit?

I don't think that they would have the technology to do anything about it and any such disruption of that scale would probably ruin the Thought Police's surveillance systems into at least temporary ineffectiveness, with both immediate and lasting effects on the stability of the Oceanic social system.

Well, I guess it depends on whether or not you accept O'Brien's statement that people are infinitely malleable. If that is the case, then once you've fully introduced Newspeak and established your hierarchical society, the people will monitor themselves, so to speak. Remember that even in 1984, every family of the Party has at least one spy in it: children. Winston's own neighbor was turned in by his daughter, and it seems to be pretty standard that children are loyal to the Party and not their parents. In this regard, the Thought Police don't need to directly monitor everyone all the time, because they have the next generation to do it for them. So, a disaster which destroys their technology doesn't necessarily mean that crimethink will suddenly go unreported and uncorrected; those who survive can still be turned in by, well, any child who happens to observe their heterodoxy.

Of course, the above only holds if the disaster is minor enough not to cause death on a truly massive scale. But I think that is the ultimate goal: to create a society where the heterodoxy can be observed and eliminated without hi-tech gadgets and such. Replace the bulk of the telescreens and hidden microphones with children, and you have yourself the same ubiquity needed to police the society.

[Gigaliel]

Doesn't O'Brien say outright there are power struggles in the Inner Party? Coups don't really strike me as problems as it's also pointed out that Party members are almost always recruited from locals. This would imply that administration is somewhat local. If it's decentralized any seizures of power wouldn't affect the whole system that much.

It would probably make more sense to to describe IngSoc as a religion than anything else (and it is occasionally described as such). Any putsches would still leave you with loony rulers following the same principles. Those deviating would be labeled a heterodox/Eurasian/East Asian and promptly invaded in a 'crusade' by neighboring provinces. Perhaps "Big Brother" sits on a nuclear stockpile to maintain the final word on orthodoxy.

Of course 1984 is incredibly subjective on points like this, but considering the intentional construction of the Party and Big Brother as a more effective God analogue, I don't see a problem with Oligarchical Collectivism ushering in a 1,000 year dark age. Going by the assumption of a global movement, anyway.

[Thirdfain]

It would probably make more sense to to describe IngSoc as a religion than anything else (and it is occasionally described as such). Any putsches would still leave you with loony rulers following the same principles.

Right, religions NEVER become violently schismatic.

I'm liking the military or NKVD coup idea a lot as well- those departments must have a great deal of power.

Coups don't really strike me as problems as it's also pointed out that Party members are almost always recruited from locals. This would imply that administration is somewhat local. If it's decentralized any seizures of power wouldn't affect the whole system that much.

A more decentralized structure would STOP coups? What if a large "local" group; (Say, the Northeastern US region) underwent a coup. What would stop them from steamrolling or marginalizing the Quebecois SSR? It seems to me the decentralized nature would make it *easier* for a local power grab and the consolidation of resources outside of the overarching "inner party." Or are you saying that there IS no centralized inner party/government?

Those deviating would be labeled a heterodox/Eurasian/East Asian and promptly invaded in a 'crusade' by neighboring provinces.

Even this degree of disruption would place the government on shaky ground. Once could imagine a power-grabbing Minitruth official engineering such an attack on a local province to build his prestige and expand his personal power, while eliminating that asshole Jenkins over in the Virginia SSR who keeps shooting down his proposals at the Inner Party board meetings.

Perhaps "Big Brother" sits on a nuclear stockpile to maintain the final word on orthodoxy.

What happens when "Big Brother" or whoever controls said stockpile gets old and dies? Who takes over? If it's not just one person, how are the members of the Supreme Board For World Control selected?

Either we've got a decentralized state with all the issues that entails- or a centralized state, which offers it's own avenues for corruption and self-serving backstabbery. The Soviet Union had a centralized nuclear stockpile and huge army to keep all the subsidiary states under control- but that didn't stop it from undergoing constant internal and political turmoil. Not to say that Oceania and the Soviet Union are the same, just that having a powerfully armed government doesn't stop it from facing internal problems.

[Samuel]

I'm liking the military or NKVD coup idea a lot as well- those departments must have a great deal of power.

The military probably doesn't- it probably is small and fractured.

What if a large "local" group; (Say, the Northeastern US region) underwent a coup.

Don't coups require taking the entire local group? After all, they only seem to have only one HQ per region (as in Britian), so you grab that and you have the territory in hand. Bribe your opposite whom you are fighting and no one ever learns about the change.

Of course, given they have about a quarter of the party dedicated to lying and changing records, that isn't going to be hard to pull off.

[Gigaliel]

Right, religions NEVER become violently schismatic.

I'm liking the military or NKVD coup idea a lot as well- those departments must have a great deal of power.

Never said they didn't? And the Catholic Church had an ideological monopoly for a long time. Ingsoc's goal was this minus any pretensions of altriusm.

Coups don't really strike me as problems as it's also pointed out that Party members are almost always recruited from locals. This would imply that administration is somewhat local. If it's decentralized any seizures of power wouldn't affect the whole system that much.

A more decentralized structure would STOP coups? What if a large "local" group; (Say, the Northeastern US region) underwent a coup. What would stop them from steamrolling or marginalizing the Quebecois SSR? It seems to me the decentralized nature would make it *easier* for a local power grab and the consolidation of resources outside of the overarching "inner party." Or are you saying that there IS no centralized inner party/government?

Well actually I said that coups "wouldn't affect the whole system that much." And of course there would be an Inner Party. The Inner Party are the ones that run everything. You say that like generals or thought police wouldn't be members. That's probably why they got the job.

Those deviating would be labeled a heterodox/Eurasian/East Asian and promptly invaded in a 'crusade' by neighboring provinces.

Even this degree of disruption would place the government on shaky ground. Once could imagine a power-grabbing Minitruth official engineering such an attack on a local province to build his prestige and expand his personal power, while eliminating that asshole Jenkins over in the Virginia SSR who keeps shooting down his proposals at the Inner Party board meetings.

Right. I imagine backstabbing of such magnitude would be rare due to other Party members obstructing it. Really, medieval politics would be an apt comparison.

Perhaps "Big Brother" sits on a nuclear stockpile to maintain the final word on orthodoxy.

What happens when "Big Brother" or whoever controls said stockpile gets old and dies? Who takes over? If it's not just one person, how are the members of the Supreme Board For World Control selected?

...I don't know? Probably behind doors politicking?

I'm going to cite precedent of large oppressive empires existing for centuries here and say it shouldn't be a major problem. Would it probably be one eventually? Probably, I never said Ingsoc would last forever.

Either we've got a decentralized state with all the issues that entails- or a centralized state, which offers it's own avenues for corruption and self-serving backstabbery. The Soviet Union had a centralized nuclear stockpile and huge army to keep all the subsidiary states under control- but that didn't stop it from undergoing constant internal and political turmoil. Not to say that Oceania and the Soviet Union are the same, just that having a powerfully armed government doesn't stop it from facing internal problems.

The Soviet Union's nukes were generally tied up with the US? And I doubt the USSR would use them on rebels in any case. When I said that I was more envisioning old bb nuking provinces away if they became too troublesome.

It's worth emphasizing that Ingsoc's was to be the final revolution. Teachers, engineers, and other intellectuals of the party got together to study the tyrannies of the past and engineer the perfect one. As such, I imagine the tenet of "if someone rocks the boat too much, crush them" would stick for the first few generations of the Inner Party.

[Thirdfain]

Never said they didn't? And the Catholic Church had an ideological monopoly for a long time. Ingsoc's goal was this minus any pretensions of altriusm.

There was a huge amount of internal discontent within the Catholic Church, and a number of rather major heresies. My point is that Ingsoc relies on a COMPLETE monopoly and complete control- which no ideology has ever held.

Well actually I said that coups "wouldn't affect the whole system that much." And of course there would be an Inner Party. The Inner Party are the ones that run everything. You say that like generals or thought police wouldn't be members. That's probably why they got the job.

The whole point of my statements regarding the instability of the 1984 political system IS th Inner Party. Who watches the watchers? I don't know if you read my post a few pages ago, but my assertion is that the generals and thought police would be members of the inner party. As a matter of fact, I doubt the society as described would have revolts by individuals who even opposed Ingsoc- rather, the problem would be struggles for control WITHIN the Inner Party. Who decides who's in charge of the Thought Police? Or the military? Sure, there are probably committees and such, but why wouldn't these politicians do whatever is in their rather vast power to make sure that they stand head and shoulders above others in the Inner Party?

...I don't know? Probably behind doors politicking?

It is precisely this sort of behind-doors politicking where the cracks in the system exist. The various members of the Inner Party are almost by definition power hungry.

I'm going to cite precedent of large oppressive empires existing for centuries here and say it shouldn't be a major problem. Would it probably be one eventually? Probably, I never said Ingsoc would last forever.

No Empire lasts for ever, and the REALLY brutal ones usually don't last long at all. Especially an empire who's entire fundamental organization is based around being as inefficient and militarily incompetent as possible.

I guess I wouldn't imagine some sort of vast popular uprising to just spring up. However, you'd see all the hallmarks of a corrupt bureaucracy- people putting their friends into positions of power, using their resources to eliminate rivals, gathering up political allies, and scrabbling for as much control as possible. Once you have power struggles, overt or othewise, within the Inner Party it's only a matter of time until the situation develops seriously.

And I'm not saying that Ingsoc would crumble to bits in a few years either- I AM saying that the system is funamentally unstable and that the image of a "booted foot, stamping on a human face, forever" would simply not come to be.

[Mayabird]

After reading through all of this, I've become convinced that Oceania/IngSoc is unstable and eventually set to collapse. There are a number of mechanisms to slow it down (recruiting children as spies, doublethink, testing for ideological purity before letting people into the Inner Party) so it could keep chugging along for a couple centuries or maybe even more, slowly rotting from the inside until it can't support itself and falls to pieces. And that despair you're supposed to feel at the thought of "this system could go on, a boot on the face of humanity forever" is Winston's despair as he's being broken, not the actual truth.