But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another...

[sir pball]

…slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. I would recommend both

Brave New World and 1984 to everyone.

[sir pball]

4. Both should be read for sure, but we're only living one.

I'd say we're 30% of the way to 1984, with a comprehensive surveillance state but lack of authoritarian structure to enforce ideology...but 85% of the way to BNW. Give us state-controlled child rearing and we're there. It's terrifyingly close.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. No, not really; in BNW there are no corporations. Economic activity is directed to fit

the world government goals of stability. There's no innovation unless it can create more jobs. No one is individually rich; if you're in a high caste, you get a fancier lifestyle, but you're still a cog in the machine. Anyone who deviates is either co-opted, or banished to where they cannot cause trouble. But the fundamental aim is keeping everything and everyone the same. It really isn't like the modern world of capitalism.

[sir pball]

13. Nor in 1984, there's just Miniplenty

Both worlds seem more or less functionally equivalent in that regard; there is no capitalism in either, the economy is planned for stability via an endless stream of entertainment, or Victory gin, cigarettes, and porn. You're absolutely right that neither is much like the real world in terms of economics - I'd say in that dimension we're headed towards Franchise-Oriented Quasi-National Entities and the burbclaves. Willingly, no force needed, on a road paved with vapid, constant amusements and distractions.

[byronius]

2. Great post. Apt.

[brush]

3. Thanks for this post.

[mdbl]

5. Repugs will use both techniques

They can't use common decency and fair treatment since they don't apply to fascism.

[Igel]

7. Right.

In the '20s and '30s, Germans watched out for their enemies, who were trying to control them: That would be the Jews and the Socialists or Communists. They dodged that bullet.

In the '20s and '30s, the Russians were on the lookout for their enemies, the Western imperial powers and the capitalists. Well, it's a good thing that they managed to live free and happy, not succumbing to such foes.

Neither BNW nor 1984 were anti-fascist books. 1984 was particularly anti-Soviet, but that's mostly beside the point. The tools and techniques are fairly neutral. It's like the guitar I have on my stand--it can be used to play William Byrd or The Byrds.

Feynman's point about how science works is relevant to the Germany/Russia examples: The easiest person for any person to deceive his him/herself. That's often true for communities and nations, as well. Just look at Venezuela.

[FreeWheatForever]

6. It's post like this that

make me come to DU everyday. Mining for gold. I have been trying to explain the Huxley prophesy to friends, however, Mr. Postman's tight logical thread tying Huxley to Orwell is the missing link. Amusing Ourselves to Death is on line, in it's entirety, for those who dare to be terrified as to what we've become.

[Achilleaze]

8. k & r

[genxlib]

9. It has been a long time since I read either

But Huxley always stuck in my mind as the more sinister and realistic (thus most frightening) future.

It is no accident that the vehicle of our distraction (social media) was used as the weapon to control public opinion in the last election.

[The Wizard]

10. No one noticed when Huxley died

November 22, 1963.

[Nay]

11. I have Neil Postman's book and reread it every few years. That book, plus Jerry

Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television described the destruction that such things as TV and the internet would bring about way before there were such things. Mander's work was written in the early 70's when there were still communities in N. America that did not have TV -- even then, the comparison of TV communities and non-TV communities revealed stark differences. We've made a new type of human, folks. One that doesn't think or deliberate much, but reacts only emotionally.