This is not by me, but it raises some interesting questions about the most famous dystopian novels.
http://theappallingstrangeness.blogspot.com/2008/10/totalitarian-states-fiction-reality.html
One of the reasons why I have never rated the film version of V For Vendetta (or at least, nowhere near as highly as I rate the graphic novel source material) is because it fails to be, for me, the ringing indictment of authoritarianism that the original was. To a large extent. V For Vendetta the movie is a superhero film for those who favour freedom and who dislike the ongoing encroaching of the state on every part of modern life. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it fails to really offer insights into what life is like in a totalitarian dystopia.
But to be honest with you, this film is no different from so many other pieces of dystopian fiction – including some classic entries in the niche genre. Take Farenheit 451 a wonderful and justly famous book. But does it really sum up how terrible it is to live under the a dystopian regime? I mean, it seems to be ok as long as you don't mind watching TV 24-7. And the real horror of the regime comes from the science fiction elements to the novel, like the nightmarish hound. The book burning is a warning sign for any society; but in this novel it comes across as a gimmick.
Which is the problem with other dystopian scenarios as well. They come across as gimmicky. Take Brave New World - yes, it is an oppressive society, but it is one where people are forced to be happy through the ingestion of drugs. It is no more nightmarish than joining a hippy commune – ignoring reality with chemical friends. Freedom may be gone, but no-one cares. Or 1985 - an entertaining novel that really represents nothing more than Anthony Burgess taking the opportunity to rant about two of his political bugbears – trade unions and Islam. The reconditioning centres in 1985, with their mix of lectures and debates, are a universe away from Room 101.
Whereas one of the reasons why the initial version of V For Vendetta is so effective is because of the depiction of life under Norsefire. It is a nightmare world, where a girl is forced into prostitution only to meet with real danger from the men who represent the police. It is a world of concentration camps and absolute control of the people; a world where an autocrat rules through the advice of a computer (that he has a borderline sexual relationship with). And it is a world where the only real hope left is a terrorist – and make no mistake about it, V is a terrorist. This is a bleak vision of the UK, and it shows very well what might happen if the authoritarian likes of Adam Susan and his party achieve power.
And then there is the daddy of all dystopian fiction – the mighty Nineteen Eighty-Four. That is truly a nightmare version of the UK (and, indeed, the world) – one where not just every word is controlled by the state, but so is every thought. The state wishes to completely crush humanity; destroying the concept of love, and ultimately even removing the need to have relationships for the purposes of procreation. And anyone who dissents isn't just arrested and executed, but is also completely crushed. This is a cold, dark, awful world that should linger in the minds of everyone who favours even an iota of freedom.
However, where I do criticise Nineteen Eighty-Four (and a lot of other works in this genre) is in their depiction, or lack of, how society gets to be so nightmarish. I appreciate that these are meant to be novels and films, rather than clear warnings about how totalitarianism comes into being. But they fail to realistically show how the authoritarian types get into power. Take Nineteen Eighty-Four - the main point of no return was a global nuclear war. Now, war can cause a totalitarian takeover – you only have to look at the fate of Eastern Europe after World War Two for proof. But that was an invasion, rather than a nuclear holocaust. A nuclear war would bring about a horrific world – however it will be closer to the world of Threads than Nineteen Eighty-Four. The truth is that the drift towards authoritarianism isn't likely to happen in a big or dramatic way. Which is all the more worrying, because unless you are watching closely, you may well miss out on those warning signs.
And I also think that the depiction of those who would drag us towards totalitarianism is far too negative. The simple truth is in that old cliché – that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is one area in which the novel version of V For Vendetta gets it so right (and the film gets it so wrong): the original depicts Labour winning an election and kicking all US missiles off UK land – in theory, a good idea (at least for paid up members of the CND). The result is a shift in the global balance of power, and an ensuing limited nuclear war.
You can see the same in reality. The roots of Stalinism can be clearly seen in much of Leninism. However, Lenin (despite his willing use of force on many occasions) did not want a totalitarian regime, and just before his death warned of the dangers of Stalinism. However, he was forced into taking draconian and illiberal action to counter what he thought were threats to his attempts to build a communist utopia. Therefore, the seeds of Stalinism – one of the most oppressive regimes that the world has ever seen – were not sewn purely out of misanthropy, but rather a misguided attempt to do the right thing for the people. Likewise, Cambodia's journey into the very heart of darkness under Pol Pot was not solely born of a desire to suppress people and seize power – it was a reaction to centuries of history and circumstances within that state. And we can see a very similar thing happening right here, right now, as some Western governments implement draconian legislation in order to protect the people from a (hopelessly exaggerated) terrorist threat. What so many works fail to show is that freedom is lost mostly through gradual erosion, not a catastrophic meltdown.
All of this literary criticism does have a point, and it is this: dystopian works of fiction have their place, there is no doubting that. But they are fiction: they do not represent reality. As I've already mentioned, the reality of the slide towards totalitarianism is far less exciting, or obvious as it is presented in fiction. Don't imagine that there will be terrible war before the state takes complete control; they won't need to do that. And they are not going to utter clear statements of intent, like burning books. The warning signs will be subtle; it will be the gradual erosion of cherished yet mundane freedoms. And by the time the population realises what is happening, it will be too late. There will be no room for manoeuvre, no freedom let to resist or protest.
Unless we start fighting that process now.
SWOTE
Reposting.
very nice
I agree completely. Distopian novels always seemed so awkward and unlikely that they didn't have as huge an impact on me. That, and Brave New World seemed like a decent idea to at least try.
Specifically, I never really liked the emphasis on the state as enforcing the totalitarianism. The larger problem of totalitarianism is when the populace goes along with it, when people start telling each other "Psst, you really shouldn't be expressing ideas like that," start turning each other in, etc.
Yes.
I agreed with the criticism, if not entirely the replacement. Many dystopian novels, especially those of the early half of this century, depict the dystopian state as a perfectly functioning body - so much so that it is boring (often on purpose). The lack of creativity, the strict control is indeed a feature of totalitarianism (as Huxley suggests with his invocation of Fordism), but its not the only one. Its often balanced out by an equal use of terror and surprise, to keep the population on its toes and in a state of permament anticipation.
Lets look at Chile, for example. I'm fascinated by the Chilean coup of 1973, for various reasons. Its very much the template of a successful implementation of a police state, and much of its intellectual roots lie in what we today call Western thinking (anti-communism, Chicago-school economics, exaltion of executive emergency powers etc), which makes it somewhat more plausible than Communist or Theocratic (Islamic or, outside of America, Christian) dictatorships.
In Chile, as with Weimar Germany's transition, and that of Royalist France before, the crisis that precipitated the installation of the Pinochet junta was an economic one. Unemployment and inflation, to be precise. As with Germany, there was actually an economic rebound before the crisis that led to the takeover hit, and I wonder if that plays a psychological role in the process. In a simple crisis, people feel they have little option but to go along with the status quo, but if things improve, they may feel "the worst is over" and with their rising prospects, want to take a gamble.
Also governments accrue certain powers in a crisis which do not endear them to the powerful in society, since it is usually at their expense. This is why business elites backed the Nazis, and why Chilean business interests backed the military, and the Nixon's plans.
In Chile, a constitutional crisis was the critcal factor in building support for a coup among the political elite. When the dust settled, the President's men were dead or had fleed the country, and Pinochet was in power. Pinochet infamously used paramilitary death squads, summary execution and concentration camps against political enemies. However, this was all done far removed from the public's eyes. People "vanished". Detention facilities were way out in the middle of nowhere, or on ships out to sea. If people got caught in the act (like César Mendoza was), then they were forced to resign. Furthermore, Operation Condor meant Chile could outsource its state terrorism to other countries in South America.
As we can see, this was a crisis precipitated by events outside of government control (to a degree) but hardly at the level of war. It was also preceeded by mass social disruption, which eventually perculated up to the executive office itself. The coup broke the nation-wide deadlock, but kept the trappings of crisis to assure its power. Yet, at the same time, it had to present the crisis as manageable, and thus hid its consequences - officially - while everyone knew the truth of what was going on. Pinochet's reforms actually made the economy worse, but most of the disruption was foisted on the poorest (who, coincidentally were usually his biggest political opponents) while financial speculators made absolute killings.
I think that, for example, the setting of V for Vendetta was much more truthful than that of 1984. Poverty, crisis and unaccountable government squads who deal out violence are far more usual than the other trappings of totalitarianism. And I don't think you actually need a huge crisis to precipitate the shift. But I would still say a crisis of sorts is necessary, if for no other reason than to give legitimate grounds, a casus belli, to the usurption of power.
I would also suggest your social authoritarianism plays an important role. "We cannot question the government, they saved us from th Communists" was, I suspect, a common refrain in Chile after 1973. Equally, as we currently see in America, the press do not need to be censored, since they do it entirely by themselves, with the media owners and leaders internalizing the stream of bullshit that comes out of the Administration.
One thing that you didn't mention, that I thought was quite key in the V for Vendetta universe (in terms of the graphic novel) for it to have such verasimilitude is the depictions of daytime TV. Much like 1984, V for Vendetta emphasized the use of obviously trashy and mindless (typically mildly pornographic, or otherwise tittilating) media in order to subdue the masses that would otherwise realize that they were living in filth and in chains. That's why in the novel, the turning point was when V took control of all of the television channels, replacing things like "Brent Saxon in the 23rd century: Brent Vs Zombie Darkies" (and whatever that sitcom was where all the jokes revolved around a character being naiive and having absurdly large breasts) with a thoughtful and probing speech, phrased in mildly alarming terms (which I don't think the movie properly adapted). "You've been a good worker, mankind, but times are getting rough, and layoffs are coming. You are about to be laid off. That said, you still have a chance. You have been dutiful and even at times had strokes of brilliance, but lately you've been slacking off -- abdicating responsibility, bringing noxious chemicals into the workplace, quarreling with your co-workers, and some of your decisions have nearly put the whole company in danger. Now, you have one year to prove that you can help bring the company back to its former glory. We will be doing renewals of management in the interim, but if by november fifth of next year you have proven your worth, we can all help make the company competitive again." (Or something).
I had other things to say, but I forgot.
On the subject of Brave New World, I never really saw it as a traditional dystopic novel. The society there isn't a horrible thing, at least for the people who condition to it successfully. (I personally would go on a killing spree within a week, assuming I wasn't sent to one of the dissenters islands on the first day).
As for movie V... I don't have the energy for that rant. Suffice to say I was pissed as hell.
The thing that really scares me about totalitarianism is that, although there's no precedent to cite here, I have a strong feeling that it's possible for such a condition to come about almost by itself. This, I think, is the essence of what discordians refer to as "the machine" and the way it happens is not by implementation of force but rather by abdication of rights.
One of the primary change mechanisms of the mob is the "kneejerk". Basically something happens to create public outrage - look at the social work/child care situation in the uk right now. The public becomes understandably (if slightly hysterically) outraged by what is seen as a failure of the machine to do the job it was put in place to do. As an immediate response a few sacrificial lambs are led to the slaughter. Key players in whatever fiasco are named, shamed and sent home with no pay but this in not enough. Stricter rules must be put in place, the goalposts shifted. Acceptable thresholds of whatever it is are tightened, civil liberties restricted as a necessary side effect.
As the original post points out - this process is so subtle and so gradual that, unless you're paying very close attention, you'll miss it but it's happening nonetheless. The thing that scares me is, aside from the odd instigator/facilitator (US Govt Patriot Act anyone?) it generally happens by itself.
At the point where the line is crossed and we enter into totalitarianism I suspect we'll be too fucking late to stop it and, more to the point, other than the jackboots on the ground, there will be no one to fight. No "big brother" to attack. Our great leader may not be a man, rather an abstract emergent property of society.
Monsters from the id are watching you
Horrormirth, ITT.
Great posts all around. Gonna go share that OP. X-Post to Verwirrung? Or perhaps a post with your reply, Cain? This is some good stuff right here.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 16, 2008, 12:24:35 PM
The thing that really scares me about totalitarianism is that, although there's no precedent to cite here, I have a strong feeling that it's possible for such a condition to come about almost by itself. This, I think, is the essence of what discordians refer to as "the machine" and the way it happens is not by implementation of force but rather by abdication of rights.
One of the primary change mechanisms of the mob is the "kneejerk". Basically something happens to create public outrage - look at the social work/child care situation in the uk right now. The public becomes understandably (if slightly hysterically) outraged by what is seen as a failure of the machine to do the job it was put in place to do. As an immediate response a few sacrificial lambs are led to the slaughter. Key players in whatever fiasco are named, shamed and sent home with no pay but this in not enough. Stricter rules must be put in place, the goalposts shifted. Acceptable thresholds of whatever it is are tightened, civil liberties restricted as a necessary side effect.
As the original post points out - this process is so subtle and so gradual that, unless you're paying very close attention, you'll miss it but it's happening nonetheless. The thing that scares me is, aside from the odd instigator/facilitator (US Govt Patriot Act anyone?) it generally happens by itself.
At the point where the line is crossed and we enter into totalitarianism I suspect we'll be too fucking late to stop it and, more to the point, other than the jackboots on the ground, there will be no one to fight. No "big brother" to attack. Our great leader may not be a man, rather an abstract emergent property of society.
Monsters from the id are watching you
I don't know that you could necessarily classify that as "happening by itself", but certainly happening at a mass level without most of the people contributing to it realizing what they're doing. Plus, in a state like that, anyone who *intends* to generate facism can easily stage a minor emergency as an excuse to take power (Hitler burning down congress, for example).
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 16, 2008, 01:47:20 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 16, 2008, 12:24:35 PM
The thing that really scares me about totalitarianism is that, although there's no precedent to cite here, I have a strong feeling that it's possible for such a condition to come about almost by itself. This, I think, is the essence of what discordians refer to as "the machine" and the way it happens is not by implementation of force but rather by abdication of rights.
One of the primary change mechanisms of the mob is the "kneejerk". Basically something happens to create public outrage - look at the social work/child care situation in the uk right now. The public becomes understandably (if slightly hysterically) outraged by what is seen as a failure of the machine to do the job it was put in place to do. As an immediate response a few sacrificial lambs are led to the slaughter. Key players in whatever fiasco are named, shamed and sent home with no pay but this in not enough. Stricter rules must be put in place, the goalposts shifted. Acceptable thresholds of whatever it is are tightened, civil liberties restricted as a necessary side effect.
As the original post points out - this process is so subtle and so gradual that, unless you're paying very close attention, you'll miss it but it's happening nonetheless. The thing that scares me is, aside from the odd instigator/facilitator (US Govt Patriot Act anyone?) it generally happens by itself.
At the point where the line is crossed and we enter into totalitarianism I suspect we'll be too fucking late to stop it and, more to the point, other than the jackboots on the ground, there will be no one to fight. No "big brother" to attack. Our great leader may not be a man, rather an abstract emergent property of society.
Monsters from the id are watching you
I don't know that you could necessarily classify that as "happening by itself", but certainly happening at a mass level without most of the people contributing to it realizing what they're doing. Plus, in a state like that, anyone who *intends* to generate facism can easily stage a minor emergency as an excuse to take power (Hitler burning down congress, for example).
Totally agree, that was my point about teh patroit act but it strikes me as opportunism, rather than sinister masterplan. Of course it gets more complex as the system develops, since it will create a snowball of facilitatory mechanisms to reinforce the mob. Think "media frenzy" but I still maintain that the driving force is not some evil genius with a masterplan, the plan has made itself.
I agree that opportunists like Hitler or whoever will seize the opportunity to take control if and when it presents itself but this is just straightforward powerlust. My point being that maybe Hitler wasn't the architect of the third Reich as much as the one who ended up driving the steamroller. If it hadn't been Adolph it'd been some other schmuck.
It makes the whole situation more worrying in my mind because, if you look at it this way then suddenly Hitler wasn't a one in a million, loose cannon, psycho warmonger. He was inevitable.
I think I agree.
One line of thinking I have toyed with is that the authoritarian state is a state of mind. It is the weakness of spirit that says we must control, oversee, standardize the details of our live, optimize the system to achieve comfort.
It is insidious and dangerous because it is not, in itself, concerned with the details. All it says is "let daddy take care of it", and that the best way to do so is control, control and more control. Thus it allows power to be sponged up and accumulated by government, at the expense of our liberties.
It's not something that's done to The People.
It what happens when The People don't bother to prevent it from taking place.
There's an imperative, buried deep in the individual and collective psyches that yearns for safety.
In many cases it overrides pretty much everything else
This is a very though-provoking subject. I agree that totalitarian states do not come about quickly and all at once, necessarily, but come about because previous steps in that direction began the ball rolling. Like here in the U.S.: prohibition > the ware on drugs > the war on terror > ???. I'm not saying those things are intrinsically linked. Prohibition =/= war on terror, obviously, but each on sets a precedent to build on. So, for example, many of the surveillance capabilities the government gave itself in the patriot act were already in effect to a somewhat lesser degree in the war on drugs.
The question I'm left with is, what is the most effective way to counteract these shifts?
Also, This thread has convinced me to buy V for Vendetta (the graphic novel). From what I've heard here, I will probably like it. I HATED that movie with a firey passion from hell. Also, I couldn't take it seriously because all I was thinking was "Jeeves?!?"
http://sharetv.org/images/jeeves_and_wooster_uk-show.jpg (http://sharetv.org/images/jeeves_and_wooster_uk-show.jpg)
<edit: couldn't get img tag to work... maybe they don't like hotlinking.>
Quote from: Akara on November 16, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
The question I'm left with is, what is the most effective way to counteract these shifts?
There's nothing you can do. Best bet is learn to blend in and practice not getting caught :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 16, 2008, 10:19:58 PM
Quote from: Akara on November 16, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
The question I'm left with is, what is the most effective way to counteract these shifts?
There's nothing you can do. Best bet is learn to blend in and practice not getting caught
Too late. Some bum with an "End of the world!" sign gave me this advice already.