I'm a little bit late to the video, but I just finished reading "Animal Farm" in German. Actually, one of the most interesting part of the book to me was the preface in the book: >>In the US, the book was rejected by 20 publishers. Although the war was over, most of the Ukrainian copies were confiscated by the American military authorities in Germany and given to the Red Army for destruction. Orwell once wrote, "Every line of my serious work fights, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism as I understand it." But when Animal Farm appeared in a pocket edition in the US, the quote was changed. "Every line of my serious work fights directly or indirectly against totalitarianism." Period. Just like the pigs and the Ministry of Truth in the novel of 1984, the Americans simply erased what was uncomfortable for them.
Since you mention Ukraine, the only version of Animal Farm with an originally published preface by Georg Orwell was the Ukrainian translation. He talks about himself being a part of the socialist movement and how the soviet regime had caused harm to that movement.
What i find ironic is that when Orwells books were first published they were condemned for being anti-capitalist (in the wests case) or anti-communist (in the USSRs case), but once they became massive cultural icons and adopted by the public, all of a sudden they’re criticisms of the other side.
The thing about Orwell is that he was one of those rarest of political animals: willing to criticize his own side for failing its ideals. Hence why so many people struggle to comprehend his message.
@@nomisunrider6472I don’t think it’s right when people point to communism and say “socialism bad” it’s just incredibly stupid. It’s like pretending America is a place of freedom and bliss… If you aren’t willing to criticise the bad actors among your own people, you are worse than them. If you aren’t willing to critise and be critised by the people outside your own ideals, you are worse than them. It’s such a simple thing yet people make it so complicated and stupid.
@@draketurtle4169 I couldn't say you're worse than them. I don't know what standards I'd be basing my claim on. It's rather that realistically you'd be identifying with your own ideas which deems proper argumentation useless as you would not talk to the people with different ideas to reach a good conclusion but to just protect your own identity.
As an American kid forced to read Animal Farm in middle school, I came away from it thinking socialism was good and the Soviet Union was bad. Which, like, was pretty close to what is seems Orwell intended, yet bafflingly, many of my classmates did not have the same reading. While I saw the animals uprising and establishment of a fairer society as aspirational, with the following decay of their rules being the result of bad actors corrupting the fundamental goodness of their initial goals, many others saw it as doomed from the beginning. They saw the ending as unavoidable, that the final assertion that the creatures were unequal as the ultimate truth, that that was the point all along. And that really, really depressed me. Because it meant, they were the pigs.
There will inevitably be a hierarchy or multiple hierarchies established and recognized in any organized society. It’s in our nature and present even among the most benevolent of groups. In and of itself then it’s a relatively neutral condition of living with one another and recognizing talent and competence. However, while some degree of competent individuals who are empathetic will hold positions within a hierarchy such as say in community leadership, there will also be bad actors looking to position themselves to try to dominate any hierarchy relevant to their own skills and interests, thereby corrupting it. And often these individuals have an advantage in doing so because they are both cunning and ruthless enough to seize control where there is either a position of authority already in place or a power vacuum waiting to be filled. What you’re speaking of is only rationally aspirational then in a hypothetical world that either doesn’t take that fully into account or which hasn’t always demonstrated that, which would not be the world that we have ever or will ever live in, with our entire history across civilizations illustrative of that being the case. Any version of a pragmatic utopia being established will inevitably be short lived following any revolution, no matter well intended - just like in Animal Farm - because there will always be “pigs” waiting to corrupt the fundamental goodness you speak of. Acknowledgement of that fundamental truth is recognizing the truth of humans living in organized societies. It does not indicate being in support of it. Our approval is immaterial. Reality continues to exist despite our objections to it. Therefore, one doesn’t have to be a pig to understand that pigs will always exist, because they have always existed and acted, time and time again, just as you would expect they would. Your classmates may or may not be the pigs, but their recognition of such creatures existing to inevitably corrupt your or anyone else’s efforts of fundamental goodness is accurate if any gain or power can be achieved in the restructuring or upheaval of the order of things. And unfortunately that has been and always will be the case.
@@amostlyreasonableguy Well said. Would you distinguish between voluntary and involuntary hierarchies? Do you think hierarchies are inherently bad but inevitable? What would you say to a reality where those in the bottom of the hierarchies (forced ones) will revolt daily and make our real society a living hell? Would then the idea of a soviet-dystopia be more attractive and similar things could be said then that capitalism is an utopian thought and reality continues to exist despite our objections to it? Would you recognize a system that is not utopian or doesn't want classless organized societies but will simply abolish states and private ownership of natural resources (I am personally conflicted about ideas that abolish states as there are practical concerns of a stateless society. Especially concerns about who can use force and how can wrong doers be punished. Will a state be inevitable even in a stateless society, how crime can be deterred and more questions along the same line of thought.) A place where I can choose to be in a hierarchy because I value a persons abilities and I can then choose to not be in that hierarchy and leave. TH-cam comments can often be ambiguous in their intentions so allow me to clarify my intent for these questions. I am not trying to make a point. I am really interested in your thoughts and what I might learn from your insights. Thanks :)
@@amostlyreasonableguy saying there will always be a hierarchy is just baseless speculation, your comment is like the whole "utOpiA is impossible bEcAusE rEaSoNs" you're just making assumptions based on speculation.
@@TheSMR1969 So you are technically correct when saying someone is wrong when they make the claim "Hierarchies will always exist." in the same way you'd be correct to say someone is wrong when they say "The sun will always 'rise' tomorrow.". But by saying this, you seem to be missing the subtext, which is "Hierarchies will always exist... until something substantial comes and radically changes how humans act." But you are almost totally wrong to say that the thought is baseless. If you look at any point in the history of human evolution (or any group creature, for that matter), you will see a system of hierarchies. So there is a very solid base to build the claim that this will continue on for quite some time. Side note, your post claiming that his position is baseless is, in itself, baseless. You are the one speculating that surely there is no history to back up his claim, and then you go on to assume that he is wrong, without saying why you think he is wrong. But you may be right, so if you'd like to go into detail as to WHY he is wrong, I'd love to hear it.
Exactly. 1984 comments on something that's always been a part of humanity, and will always be a part of humanity. That of Power, humans trying to become superior to other humans, clas divide, human bias, perception of reality, language, etc etc. That's why it feels like 1984 predicted the future, because it's not just a book about politics, it's a book about human nature. So as long as we continue to be humans, 1984 will have something to say about whatever time period it exists in
Yup, commentary on WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and even later McCarthyism, and Classism. Spun a tale expertly about leaning into the actual propaganda dealt to the public and propaganda sent abroad about the status of the country their in. I recently rewatched the Imitation Game about Alan Turing Though I think the red coveralls are representative of people missing the point of the book as they play into the fantasy of the “thought police”
I feel like that's sort of the point of any dystopian writing. Pointing out perceived current problems through hyperbole, by taking them to their extreme conclusion, by asking "what would happen if we went on like this?".
I read ''1984'' in November of '84. Thought it would be cool to read the novel in its namesake year. The experience was eerie because I had just been transferred to a newly built prison where there were cameras & microphones in the halls, cell lights that were never turned off, Reagan's face plastered everywhere, nukes called Peacekeepers, and missiles lobbed nonchalantly back & forth in the Middle East. Couldn't help but think old George called good money. Still, Aldous may have came closer with his hedonistic world that keeps discontent at a minimum.
Both 1984 and Brave New World, especially the latter, borrowed from "We" by Eugene Zamyatin, published in Russia in 1924 and suppressed by the communists.
🤨Have you ever went through America's socialized Healthcare?? I can tell you what it looks like, I grew up in it all my life. It's the military tricare system. 6 hours in the ER vs 30 minutes with civilian care. My grandfather just got his shoulder surgery only after 40 years. They still cover up quite a bit too. The reason isn't talking animals, it is because it simply doesn't work for a country as vast and diverse as ours.
@@Alaska-bi2nm Canada is bigger, has a tenth of the population, a less than a tenth of a budget, and still delivers high-quality healthcare to the entire population with the state, for less money than the American system requires as well
When I read the book as a kid, I felt the main point of Animal Farm was that it'd be okay if Snowball managed to stay in charge. I can't imagine how someone would read Animal Farm and conclude that the farmers were the good guys.
I wanted to interpret it like that BUT Snowball paved the path to his own exile. The innocent corruption of stealing apples and milk for working hard with their brains is directly what allowed everything else.
Yes it is actually a a bit of a neo liberal conspiracy to portray it and Animal farm as anti left. George Orwell remained a strong socialist all the way to his death bed.... though he did have some hopes of the democratic west being a force for good.... they were high hopes indeed.
@@msbramble176 i was going to say he was a full on socialist i dont understand why people think hes this pro capitalism at all costs libertarian kinda guy
Much of Orwell's work is against (governmental) oppression, so it's very strange to see arguments about whether it was for or against a particular political position, as though there is any government or political position that is immune to tyranny.
He was a democratic socialist. This is a fact. Not understanding this is, to a large extent, not understanding the nature of Orwell's works, in which he defends this perspective.
@@ANovaMaquinadoTempo I guess you don't believe in the death of the author. But I'm glad to learn that social democracy is the one form of government that's immune to corruption... Is the snarky comment I want to make, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Which leads to the question: what are you saying? How does asserting Orwell's political position in any way address my comment?
@@ReturnOfHeresy Orwell wrote in the text "Why I write". "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." He understood that this was not only relevant, but central to his role as a writer. If you can't see that this is relevant, I can't help you. I understand that respecting the author's original intent as something relevant. I would add that he was not against government, this is a completely wrong and distorted view of Orwell's thinking, he defended the union of equality and freedom, of socialism and democratic radicalization. If a government were democratic (or radically democratic), and egalitarian, in Orwell's view, it would tend to be less corrupt.
@@ANovaMaquinadoTempo I didn't say he was against government, I said much of his work is against governmental oppression. Your quote supports that "against totalitarianism". As for the rest, I am a bit curious: how does, for example, Nineteen Eighty-Four argue for a particular political position (e.g., for democratic socialism)?
@@ReturnOfHeresy "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." It's good to see the full quote, of course he was against totalitarianism, but he ardently defended democratic socialism. This shows up clearly in Animal Farm, for example, in the sympathy he shows in Snowball, a pig clearly inspired by Trotsky. In addition to the critical characterization of Jones, the capitalist farm owner. The highly negative characterization of the pig Napoleon in this book is an attack on Stalin, as well as Big Brother in 1984. He, Orwell, was a libertarian socialist, radically democratic, and deeply anti-Stalinist this is especially clear in Homage to Catalonia. To think that this reduces the defense of socialism is to misunderstand the libertarian currents of socialism. A lot of people don't understand, but for a person like me, who has a doctorate studying politics, far from contradictory, Orwell's speeches are obvious, and show his positions, even in literary books. I find it deeply regrettable how misunderstood Orwell is and I commend this video, as this video at least tried to show what Orwell actually stood for.
1984 gotta be one of the most strumentalised books in history. People want to prove their point and sound smart so much that they actually forget what this story is about. Pity... it still is one of my favourite books, I came to associate it with my high school years, for me it evokes a strange feeling of nostalgia. The underlying feeling of anxiety and pervasive lack of hope... as far as atmosphere goes that’s exactly how my hisghschool years were - hopeless. It’s definitely one of those pieces of literature that I’ll never forget.
Lol yep! Talking about cameras, surveillance, "Big Brother." It's like... "bro, you know the real scary thing about 1984 that Orwell was making a point about-- the psychology/sociology of a society filled with people mentally broken down and indoctrinated well enough that they can simultaneously consciously acknowledge and believe two mutually exclusive, contradictory, incompatible things? That such cognitive dissonance could exist and be systemicly reinforced-- and even become self-sustaining as every individual becomes a narc against others-- even those with whom their realistic interests align; people of their own socioeconomic strata?" *crickets** It's so wild. I guess that would blue screen their brains though. Orwell was right, lol.
Ngl, the idea of someone writing a ground breaking book that is universal and was meant as self reflection, but people constantly use it to justify their own option and make their opponents seem like the bad guys can be a book itself, even one orwel may wright himself if he saw the reactiona his books got
One of the central themes in the background of 1984 is also the three empires, constantly allying and then switching and being at war with each others. This directly mirrors how the western Empires suddenly did a switcheroo and were pro Soviets in order to be anti Nazis. It also shows that they essentially force each other into staying totalitarian. Each side might even want to be less authoritarian but they fear it would hive their enemy an opening to destroy them.
Which is kind of what happened to the USSR in the end. Big Gorbi wanted his country to be more democratic, and the western efforts to bring it down came to fruition right then.
Huh, I always understood that they didn’t actually attempt to destroy each other so there public has a common enemy and the elite remain in power. They could nuke each other but then there population doesn’t have an enemy, better just to send countless men into the meat grinder to keep the war machine turning
The west was never pro-communist nor pro-soviet. The west were steadfastly anti-nazi and sided with the russians only so long as it was necessary to defeat nazi Germany. Nor were the west totalitarian - this is evidenced by the democratic election of President Truman in 1945, and by Winston Churchill losing government by election in July 1945 and becoming the leader of the British opposition. Where exactly is the totalitarianism on display here?
If the Western Empires switched to being pro-Soviet in order to be anti Nazi, that should be considered a point in their favour presuming one thinks the USSR was any better than the Nazis. Which it wasn't. It also of course mirrors how the USSR switched from propping up the Nazis [for what I realize were entirely sensible strategic and ideological reasons, respectively to keep the Nazis looking west first for enemies, and to try to let the Nazis destroy Europe and allow a revolution later] to being vehemently anti-Nazi in their own defense and condemning those who had been fighting since 1939 as insufficiently anti-Nazi.
But neither Germany or the US are totalitarian states. And when the Soviets joined the allies, it was only for a common goal of being anti-Nazi. But being anti-Nazi isn't synonymous with being _pro_ Soviet.
You can't really understand how 1984 relates to British imperialism without understanding what the British were doing in Burma during the time that Orwell was there. They were engaged in an enormous systematic campaign of physical and psychological terror designed not just to stymie resistance but to disintegrate existing social and economic structures and re-engineer them in a way that made it easier for the British to control and exploit the people and the geography. They murdered, they stole children, they interred whole communities. They tried to set class against class, ethnic group against ethnic group, creed against creed, even brother against brother. They set about destroying not just physical infrastructure but the psychic and cultural infrastructure. Anything that provided any sort of stable base for society as it existed independent of British interests. 1984 is what Orwell saw as the future not in the sense of ephemeral political ideologies but something more simple and fundamental. All encompassing totalitarian rule by an abusive and exploitative ruling class.
That's just the English being English. They were doing it when Mel Gibson was shouting freedom and they still do it in Ireland and inside their rump Island Empire. They did it so much throughout the World that it even got it's own term..."Divide and Conquer".
@@TheDentedHelmet yes, I was thinking about it in regards of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Brits went there and made a mess. Then, Palestine and Israel. I fell like I'm missing something, beyond Churchill ordering to shoot and sink a French fleet during WWII... (As a display of power)
@@Weissenschenkel It was not a display of power, it was so that the Germans didn't capture it. If I am correct the French surrendered and the English captured the fleet.
everything you said is correct except "a ruling class", that's where you started pandering to the class struggle ideology of Marxism. Orwell just said totalitarianism isn't distinct to one ideology, so USA saying communists are totalitarian while unjustly doing experiments on their population and Soviets calling capitalism, a totalitarian imperialistic ideology while sending people to gulags is what Orwell criticised.
The irony with Orwell's "predicting the future" thing is that he was responding to things currently going on during that time. I guess history really does repeat itself
Only because we allow it too. We’re too easily manipulated. Here in Australia the Right wing Governments claim to be fiscally more responsible than the left wing. But looking at the Reserve bank of Australia figures show that the Righr always leave the country in a worse fiscal state than the left when there’s a change of Government. It’s our Double speak. I guess MAGA is currently yours.
There were governments mandated tvs that would spy and blast ads 24/7 in his book. Today we have a "free" tv doing exactly that, exept its not government mandated and people are doing it to themselves. No, that didnt happen in 1984, yes he did predict some things
It’s not repeating itself. It’s been a constant through line that is ever evolving and shifting with often large parallels but the video perfectly showcases this in the end by defining what the West is by often defining what it ISNT. So saying the West, as defined here, has an enemy doesn’t mean it’s repeating itself, sure being in conflict again might seem like repetition but the conflict between capitalism and communism isn’t the same as imperialism for colonized peoples or democracies versus Islamic militants for example
Oh is that a person? I thought it was a talking pile of biscuits next to a cup of tea in a posh garden. kidding ofc, Tom has a great voice I could listen to his analysis all day
I’m always amazed to see both “Animal Farm” and “1984” consistently appearing on the American Library Association’s list of frequently challenged books: the reason for the challenges is often that they “promote Communism”. Obviously they are challenged by those who have no idea of their actual content.
it's like america's two party democracy is often undemocratic and deadly to those who oppose it, and that the two parties serve one ever growing group in terms of influence
have you ever looked at the majority of challengers? mentally ill crackpots ( chemicals in the water and chem trails are common) followed by socialists who want it banned for the obvious reasons. seriously read beyond the headlines.
Orwell: Newspeak simplifies language in order to prevent people from properly communicating their ideas Boomers: "Language is too complex now! Just like in 1984!"
He was right about language being weaponized by totalitarian forces, he was just wrong about the way of achieveng it. And you can't blame him because modern leftism isn't based on Marxism-Leninism nearly as much as on Franchfurt Shool and postmodernism.
@@TheTsuryuu but they aren’t being compelled into any speech by the government. That fundamentally is not what they are responding to. If I sucker punch you and then lie and say “I was trying to kill a wasp that was flying near your head”, that doesn’t change the reality that you just got punched in the head. Likewise, we shouldn’t take people seriously who cry “compelled speech” anytime someone doesn’t find one of their jokes funny.
@@TheTsuryuu no level of complexity was crucial in order to prevent people from potentially having thoughts or saying things that might change their loyalty to the party
I think it’s similar but not the same as what we have now. Nowadays, words get softened to be more palatable and help to normalize what was previously unacceptable or otherwise unattractive behavior. Easy Examples: Pedophile -> minor attracted person Cross dresser -> nonbinary Transsexual-> transgender With these changes, “gone” is the perception of these outliers being perverted weirdos, prostitutes or strippers in the shady part of town. No one would have originally approved of parents turning their children into trans sexuals. But it seems to be accepted because now it’s about ~gender~ and how people have been socialized to feel these. I say seem, because the majority of people do not agree with this at all but feel forced to use the newspeak in order to not be cancelled by the fascists.
As I always have to tell students in my science classes when I hear them talking about Animal Farm "The pigs were villains, but was the farmer the hero?" Takes them a bit to realize while the book warns about the revolution betrayed, not having the revolution wasn't the answer either.
That's right. The book is a tragedy. And the most tragic part of the whole thing is at the end where the animals look into the farmhouse and see no difference between the pigs and the farmers.
You're a great teacher, use to love stuff like that. But only one teacher was playful and had fun teaching us. I wish your profession got more appreciation as the great gatekeepers of every nation/sociates future. The future belongs to the educators. I really believe that.
@@Libikuroi Always cringe a little when I walk by a class and the teacher is screaming or just how done with their job they seem to be. Unfortunately the way out society works they have to keep at it even after they have burned out and don't love the job anymore.
I was banned from Twitter so this is just like when George Orwell wrote Animal Crossing Edit: Please for the love of God I just wanted to make a shitpost not create a debate thread
JP hasn't made any such claim. It's almost like you have shoehorned JP into this video to get more views. An otherwise good video that loses credibility by denouncing JP in unfounded and arbitrary smears.
@@danielfletcher9080 Well, is it the case or not that JP cited Orwell's 1984 as a celebration of British freedom of the press, whilst 1984 is a critique about both right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism, including British censorship and absence of actual freedom of the press...? Is it the case or not that JP uses 1984 to blindly criticize "Socialism" as a whole, even though its author was himself a Socialist, albeit a Libertarian/Democratic & anti-Stalinist one? I mean Peterson might be a great psychologist & life coach or whatever, but when it comes to politics he's just as caricatural and clueless as my drunk great uncle is
@@quentinbongard9046 in what way is 1984 a critique of right wing govts given Oceania is explicitly Stalinist state?.The two minute hate and the campaign against Goldstein satirizes Stalin's removal of Trotsky and the show trials of the 1930s .This was not Hitlers forte or Mussolini or Franco's The rewriting of history and airbrushing out of politically inconvenient rivals is the USSR.
"The proposition that underlies Western culture is that there's a transcendent morality predicated on the idea of God" I guess the guy forgot about the Russian orthodox church. I don't know who the guy is (I just watched to see how people misinterpret 1984) but he doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
@@pplelo9364 Also lets toootaly forget all The Other religions That was practiced before christianity came and fucked Them over. Like irish peagans, norse mythos, along with greek mythos. Generaly places That are refered to as part of The West, That didnt worship The Christian god.
I'm so happy that you talked about how he's a socialist that hates authoritarianism. I'm tired of people being half with the book and not really seeing his message
I hate how people can be so "literal" Orwell didnt predict the future we dont do the two minutes of hate after work, and there is no not a tv looking at us all time, kids dont sell their parents to the goverment. Yeah true bro, we just scream at whatever mass media tell us, we carry 24/7 a cellphone, and kids in canada can send their parents to prison for not using their pronouns.
One of my takeaways from 1984 was the explanation of "doublethink" and how realistic it is. People doublethink everyday and it is peculiarly satisfying when you catch yourself doing the same
@@noahwiebe2558 yes, both inner and outer. Like, employees of the ministry of truth changed previously published material as per the party's wishes and yet chose to not see any inconsistency in the tall claims that the party perfectly predicts everything. O'Brian too, when he held the piece of paper which was irrefutable evidence that Aaronson, Rutherford and the other guy weren't the criminals they were accused to be, he put it in the incinerator like thing and chose to 'erase' the memory of that piece of evidence ever existing making only the party's claims true. Okay, this was long lmao
I remember reading Animal Farm when I was maybe 12 or 13 years old, and discussing it with my English teacher at the time. Being 12, I was only passingly aware of the mainline interpretation of Animal Farm as a takedown of the USSR, and while the parallels are obvious, I asked my teacher why interpretation was so limited. The entire thrust of the novel - the actions of the pigs, overthrowing the tyrannical farmer only to institute their own hypocritical tyranny in his wake, encapsulated by the most famous "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" maps almost perfectly onto the Founding Fathers of the United States. "All animals are equal" is even a very nearly direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. I'm not even American, but my teacher immediately launched into a voracious defence of the text, saying that it no way could be understood as a skewering of American political values and that such a reading was ahistoric. I retorted - I never claimed it to be historic, I just thought it was weird that this text that, on its own merits, is equally sound allegory for the founding myths of both America and the USSR is only ever spoken of in terms of a skewering of the latter and never the former. After several more minutes of lecturing, I dropped the issue. Discussing it later with other teachers and eventually university colleagues, you'd get about 50/50, either this kind of "no it couldn't possibly be!" pearl-clutching, or a knowing eye-roll indicating that everyone knows its true, but you can't say it out loud without risking the ire of a classicist who can't read.
1. this never happened. 2. you really just compared the USSR's deep dive into an authoritarian hellscape to the implementation of a federal government for the US by the founding fathers.
1.It might be true, it might not. I read 1984 when I was 14-15,and remember finding it a bit naive and contributing that to the fact that it was written in 1940s,not seeing the forest for the trees. 2.He did, and he is right, from some point of view. Both were revolutions that started by overthrowing of the "farmer", then proclaim freedom and equality for all, only to limit it for certain groups of people. It's not a perfect analogy, rarely something is, but certainly is a valid point.
@@edwinhuang9244 But the American revolution wasn't over slavery, it was a system that existed outside of it. Its like calling America when it was fighting in ww2 the bad guy because they still practiced segregation
@@thevrana 1. He went to his teacher and talked about his comparison of the founding of America to animal farm and authoritarianism. Think about it. 2. The American revolution was caused by a longing for self-governance coupled with unfair taxes imposed by a distant nation, the revolution in animal farm is caused by a longing for the end of the pain and oppression from the farmer. The end goal and outcomes were completely different, as then in the real world the Americans setup a government aimed at maintaining equality, while the latter turned full Stalin and began oppressing others. Sailor PlanetMars said they match almost perfectly, so when you tell me it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy you are ignoring the person you are trying to defend. The big brained geniusf Sailor PlanetMars also called inequality as being an American political value.
I read a book by Neil Postman, a cultural critic recently and he says, while we were worried about 1984 happening, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World happened instead right under out noses.
Modern americas infatuation with pleasure and drugs for one. Not much of a example of caste unless you consider celebrities born celebs. Uhm, weed is used similar to the way the drug was in the book. (I smoke too though so w/e) there are more in just not capable of bringing them up.
It is very much a combination of both. Dopamine hits for breakfast and literal definition changes for dinner. The manipulation of language is truly astounding. And much like 1984 so many people just forget the meaning of words as soon as they are informed of what they really mean. Then the online dictionaries edit the definition overnight and most people don't even know what physical books are anymore.
This has become such a tired trope so quickly. I would hope that in 2021 we'd moved on from that naive reading of books and the oversimplification of the real world. But of course a nuanced critic doesn't garner headlines...
I was a kid in the 1980s, and my mates and I were pretty much resigned to the fact that we were going to die in a firestorm of mutually assured destruction. When the 1990s came along, it was hard to get used to the fact that I might actually have a future!!
@@razorednight I completely agree. The national media were continuously churning-out very graphic programmes about what happens in the event of a nuclear attack. We were led to believe that there would be a 2-minute warning, that we had ought to paint our windows white, put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye... As an 80s kid it was chilling as f. Much like these days really lol
"Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution. But I did mean it to have a wider application in so much that I meant that that kind of revolution (violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power-hungry people) can only lead to a change of masters." Orwell
@@shelbypowell9919 and considering how few revolutions actually successfully created more liberty and prosperity for its belligerents, those conserving the old system may well be holding their civilization together from abject violence and chaos, where innocent people are killed or turned guilty.
@@wisdomsdoorstep don’t worry. I was like you once: scrambling to justify my place in Omelas. But one day, you’re going to wake up. You’ll look around, and realize this “civilization” doesn’t meet the burden of proof required to justify its existence. At that point you may either double down, worshiping Omelas in all its glory, or you may walk away. If you find your way to us, drop in. We have free kombucha and watermelon.
@@shelbypowell9919 it’s funny how nearly every person advocating for the overthrow of masters always has another group of other masters to join. You might want to think on that, i.e. if your masters let you.
I'm pretty sure they read Machiavelli's The Prince everyday before bed too. PS: It's not an evil ideological book but can be dangerous for the empty headed.
@@vitaminc2161 nah a lot of aristocrats and monarchists got mad at machiavelli because he essentially spelled out an exposed all the methods and strategies rulers have been using to grow and maintain power. its like "noooo don't tell them about the propaganda, boogeyman campaigns and political backstabbing i do on the daily nooo"
Don't forget the big corporations. Whilst people pay attention to governmental overreach, they are sneakily taking rights away, censoring, rewriting history and brainwashing masses.
"The great English journalistic tradition [of freedom of speech] keeps everyone including journalists honest." This man has never read a British newspaper in his entire fucking life.
during victorian era press became 4 power cause they published very honest critique of society, the good investigation, after press becaming influencial the rich and governament coopted press as propaganda piece and instead of 4 power in state became a ridiculus machine
Please be more specific... Orwell was a profound supporter of Democratic Socialism, but also highly despised communism. In section 3 of 1984, Orwell writes: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The *German Nazis and the Russian Communists* came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of *persecution is persecution* . The object of *torture is torture* . The object of *power is power* . Now do you begin to understand me?’" And there were communist attempts to assassinate Orwell. lithub.com/the-communist-plot-to-assassinate-george-orwell/. Hey to "Orwellian" experts out there! Orwell isn't his real name. His real name is *Eric Arthur Blair*. His fake name was created because he feared persecution and murder as mentioned on the link above. Look, before anyone calls me a right-wing troll and that I secretly have a dick for Trump. No, I greatly believe democratic socialism can be beneficial right now in America. I believe we need to improve our unstable capitalist system with more humane policies like medicare all and free college. But we need to also understand that Orwell's message was anti-authoritarian, regardless of what the political system is. His bigger point was to show that human beings are easily corrupted and manipulated. That our human nature can precede beyond our political beliefs. So, yes I feel like I need to have a daily habit of rolling my eyes 9 times a day when Liberals use Orwell as an example of why Trump is bad or when Conservatives use Orwell to why Biden is bad. Because in the end, American politics is a brainwashing cesspool of doublethink regardless if you're a Democrat or Republican. If Orwell was alive today, he would describe the entire political landscape and not exclusively on generic political terms like Democrat or Republican. Thank you.
As a person from post-soviet country I didn't know it was a required reading in America, because in my country it wasn't. I was positively surprised all this time, why wouldn't I because it's such a great book to understand totalitarian view of world such as German/English, of course Soviet and now other countries like China and America. So I was really wondering why America was basically shooting itself in the leg with requiring 1984 in schools, until you mentioned how it was used. I still feel so dumbfounded why I didn't realise earlier that you can just use it as anti-soviet book, how dumb I was for even thinking America didn't use it as propaganda as well.
This video is really interesting to me, because I never saw it as an "anti-communist" or and "anti-capitalist" book, I saw it as completely "anti-totalitarian", and hence opposing both far-right and far-left. I didn't even know the american right liked this book, as I'd always associated it with opposing everything they tend to stand for. Thank you for the thought provoking video, as someone who isn't from a country directly involved in the cold war and too young to have lived through anyways, I learned a lot!
You don't know because you don't understand politics. Like, at all. The far right are totalitarian, not "the right". As a centrist, leaning left, the right are probably the least totalitarian outside of the most extreme of liberals. Politics is more complicated than that and George Orwell's book essentially just criticizes the extreme that can effect either political 'side'. It questions a whole load of things that allow anyone, with any political stance, to use an extract in defence of their own political views.
The right stands for regression to older tradition, the left stands for progression, which more and more looks like progression, but progression towards a doom we haven’t seen.
@@pagatryx5451 I dunno, the left has historically been less totalitarian, hasn't it? Stonewall riots, race equality, gender equality movements and all that tended to cause riots, the whole point of progressivism is to change existing systems, which usually goes against existing systems of government and makes the individual's voice heard, the opposite of totalitarianism. The right tends to be less accepting of other perspectives existing in tandem with their own, passing laws to prohibit certain expression, to my knowledge.
@@Mich-jk2ze Could be, but we've seen the past already and it wasn't very good. Future could be terrible, or it could be great, but we haven't seen it yet so we might as well find out rather than settle for a past which wasn't good.
I always liked the UK being called Airstrip1, it seemed to encompass it's demise as a global super power while simultaneously putting it into the category of 'Mericas little bitch'. Nothing's changed there.
Haha, definitely. In fact, more than anything else, the dividing up of the globe into spheres of influence was the key influence on the writing of the book. And probably the most prophetic.
Assuming what little we know is true. For all we know airstrip 1 is the only place in the world like this. It could be similar to real life North Korea, just even more extreme and cut off.
that's not quite what was meant I think, the point was more that the traditional notion of what "britain" or "england" was had been destroyed, i.e the party had destroyed the old notions of what it meant to be english and replacing it with worship of the party and its doctrine. Thus there is no more england, it's airstrip one, and there are no more englishmen, just members of the party
@@eliasfuhrmler2564it's not just that he is blissfully unaware but that he doesn't feel like he has to understand anything to make a authoritative statement about it.
IMHO, if you want a vision of future capitalism, look into Japan, where many people are not even treated as human by their own parents; because there's such a heavy societal push to be a good worker.. And millions of people die alone, and uncared for, because they don't wish to be a bother to those around them. Sure much of that can be attributed to Japanese culture, but that's still exactly where I see America, and sometime later, Canada, heading towards. We already have a heavy societal push towards vanity, and the welfare class is widely looked down upon, and directly insulted. Much of the current propaganda is pushing towards further separation, and discontent within the individual members, and groups within our society.
I mean, we just need to enact Eugenics as our class system, elect a few Supreme controllers and eliminate every world government and where bout there. TBH, Orwell's vision of a dystopia is far closer to what we are seeing today with concepts like 2+2=5 and newspeak. Aldous was close though, we are pampered too much to really care anymore, but that's about where it ends.
I like what he said about how imperialism "oppresses the colonized and spiritually corrupts the colonizer". How are we to understand this spiritual corruption? Could it be the lies and excuses colonizers make to uphold the system distort the culture, and even our understanding of reality?
Brexit is a sign of that spiritual corruption. The Brexit campaign deliberately played on imperial nostalgia. The ruling party has constructed a sainthood around Churchill, a defender of empire and colonialism, to the point you can’t point out his flaws without being attacked and the government passing a draconian law to protect statues after a Churchill one had graffiti on it and one to a slave trader was toppled.
@@noyes8882 I don't believe in racism, outiside of violence. Preserving ethnicities is in everyone's interest, it cannot be discriminatory, if anything those who favour mixing imply that the other identity is not worthy of being preserved, which is discriminatory and racist, for those who believe in it.
@@noyes8882 No one should have mixed babies. I don't think you realize at what degree of risk European identity is. There are almost no more European kids in European schools.
What I got from 1984 was a lesson about Power, and how groups of humans will always resort to the most extreme means possible to retain their superiority over others. O'Briens villain speech to Winston while electrocuting him almost electrocuted me with how hair raising it was.
The lesson you should've learnt from Animal Farm is that individuals will game the system to take power, and will lie unless there are systems of accountability and openness to expose their lies.
I took from Animal farm that it's very important to stay politically engaged. That you can't just vote the right person in and then trust that they will do the right thing. Also that if a politician makes claims that another did something you should always double check that.
Excellent video, but I think your interpretation of 1984 is lacking a little in the area of one of it's most important themes, that of language. Orwell was extremely concerned with how western propaganda was deliberately trying to remake both history and the very meaning of words, so that words which was negatively loaded no longer were. And so everything becomes the opposite of what it originally meant. I always understood that INGSOC is the English socialist party, and the two things that it isn't, is socialist and English. That was the whole point of the new-speak isn't it?
Good catch. I somehow never even noticed that. I wonder if Orwell named it IngSoc taking inspiration also from Hitlers Socialist party, since they clearly were not socialist either.
@@DonMo999 all words have changed definitions and meaning naturally over time. A living language is a tool of those whom speak it. A book or author of a dictionary will never be able to perfectly define words or cement their meaning forever.
An example of Orwell’s newspeak would be how the right lies and propagandises through their media outlets like Fox. Trump is a great example of someone who would say something then tell everyone he meant the opposite of what he said or he never said it at all and his loyal followers would then repeat those lies ad naseum until it became the new truth. Understanding the proper definition of gender is not new speak, anyone who claims it is is stupid or acting in bad faith. New speak is not the evolution of language or academic understanding of language, it’s being told what you’ve heard with your own ears is never happened as a form of domination and it’s a popular tool of fascism and the far right.
Oh definitely, as Tom said, it was the event that leads to Orwell developing the worldview that he held for the rest of his life. Would definitely help clear up whatever notion the cherry pickers got after going through whatever content their echo chambers generated.
@@renlevy411 "A prototypical red-basher who pretended to be on the left was Goerge Orwell. In the middle of WWII, while the soviet union was fighting for its life against Na.i invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that 'a willingness to crticise Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty', safely ensconsed within a virulently anticommunist society. Orwell, with Orwellian double-think, characterised the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against *imaginary* Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes" Michel Parenti, in his book, Blackshirts and Reds, on the topic of Left Anticommunism.
@@comradecam Are you going to actually take the opportunity to listen to someone from the global south? or are you going to whistle to your white middle-class buddies to come laugh at this "stupid tankie"?
We live in a weird mix of 1984 and Brave new world. In some places, the boot is on your neck, and in others, you are just sedated with distractions, the silliest distractions possible. And in some places you have a mix of both, strangely being run at the same time.
Yeah, I’m kind of people tired of calling 1984 the future. It is much closer to Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World where people accept tyranny not through punishment, coercion, or pain, but through pleasure, distractions, and the ever belief that words are harmful. Which is why censorship will not come from the government but from the people(cancel culture) and corporations(Twitter/Facebook) and eventually the government. Tom Nicholas is a fucking charlatan throughout the entire video misconstruing points about both Peterson and Orwell. He creates straw men on the right that only exist so he can pretend to “own the conservatives”.
@@kylevernon there are no strawmen in this video. It is just that you are intellectually incapable of understanding nuance and subtext beyond what you feel serves your ideology. A typical Conservative attitude.
@@xmlthegreat The fact that you feel compelled to use the second biggest fallacy in the book to answer a comment that points out the video is full of them is just really funny
@@sizalx5226 when my opponent just straight up lies (you notice there is no actual example of a straw man in his comment, just a blanket statement) then I have no qualms dismissing them with their own stupid logic. They don't want to play by the rules, so I'm not going to either. You can laugh it up, but when Conservatives speak their words no longer contain meaning or weight.
Great video! You really researched his life thoroughly. I have just one question... What was it like co-starring with Elijah Woods in Lord of the Rings?
After this video drops be prepared for the giant downvote brigade that happens every time someone dares question Peterson. Same thing happened to Hakim.
@Faith Reader Could be changed (I hope it is) but what I expect to see is a largely positive like/dislike ratio early on, since the initial views will be subscribers and fans. However with the name "Jordan Peterson" in the title what is going to happen is this video will get recommended or show up in a any Jordan Peterson searches or auto play algorithms. This then brings in all the Jordan Peterson fans looking for Jordan Peterson TH-cam Videos. That's when the big temper tantrum starts and you end up with a massive amount of dislikes and trolling in the comments section as time goes on. I expect to see it weeks / months later.
@@-Zevin- The video Faith Reader mentioned is two weeks old, and JP fans definitely found it as it has 5.1k downvotes, but they can't match the 42k upvotes. ContraPoints made her massively triggering JP video almost three years ago (that scene in the bathtub is etched into my memories...), gathered 11k downvotes since then, but that's dwarfed by the 126k likes.
To be honest, the thing you describe of having loads of likes/nice comments when a video first releases and then getting a bit more grief later on happens with most topics (particularly when critiquing someone with, let’s say, “enthusiastic” fans.
@@Tom_Nicholas Good point. I hope people understand that context at least. There is always a silver lining too, and that is many Peterson fans will inevitably watch this video and appreciate a new perspective, even if they are not publicly vocal admitting so. A channel I follow that has very "left" leaning political views recently got raided during a live stream by a right libertarian channel. Huge dislike to like ratio, lots of trolling in comments and live chat etc. However the interesting part is, this politically left channel also gained a few hundred new subscribers that very same day.
@@Tom_Nicholas Straw man people's position much? This might be the most feeble attempt to hit Peterson I've seen to date. Anyone who understands Peterson and his work, knows you're flailing wildly here. Nothing more than a banal serving of politically polarized grandstanding.
That's what happens when people go over any kind of media without properly understanding it. A pretty good example is Starship Troopers, it's a satire of a futuristic fascist state where the government uses fearmongering to control it's citizens, there's a lot of imagery that is based on nazi simbols, uniforms, etc to make it more obvious, but you play it to anyone not being critical of these things, and the satire goes over their head and it turns into a right wing propaganda story of sorts. If you have a story where you don't clearly establish which side is good and which side is bad, a lot of people may not pick up on it, and if you do establish it, right wingers will say that the movie is propagandizing people into left wing/communist stuff because they can't agree to the bad side is doing even though their own politics would support it. Also it's kinda funny how right wingers will also try to co-opt anything they think is good and use it to disparage the opposition, like they saying that they are the true patriots and centrists and leftists are antiamerican. Which could actually be true, but not for the reason right wingers think, which makes it all even funnier.
@Roblovjc I believe what he means is that 1984 is frequently used to defend seemingly opposing viewpoints, and the intent of the text is lost. If you're a communist, 1984 is a defense of communism, if you're a fascist, it's a defense of fascism, etc.
@@Tom_Nicholas I second the request. A small bit which I think would be worth to include: a few centuries back (well before Orientalism), at the time of the Great Northern War, Russia wasn't part of "the East', but 'the North'.
@@Tom_Nicholas Have you heard of historian/author Tom Holland? He argues that Christianity is what still defines our culture in "the West" even if it's not explicitly Christian anymore. You might find him interesting.
Whenever someone mentions "Western culture" I think of the anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi. Interviewer: "What do you think of Western civilization? Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."
Lol. Nice one. Here in the States I'm always bemused by how, when warned of the Lurking Danger of Communism, the knee-jerk response is to double down on the conditions that foster it. It's like seeing someone responding to poison ivy with fertilizer and a watering can.
My father, on the other side of the pond, had this insane fear of Communists as well. So did my peers at Catholic school, I remember their telling me the embargo on Cuba was fine because “they were Communists”.
I did not watch the entire video yet, but, from the description, I think Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing consent" is worth mentioning here since he precisely shows, why journalists do not really say what they want to say in Western media either.
Might I also recommend some more non-fiction works: *-"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle* *-"Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser* Both of these books deal with propaganda in relation to the meat and dairy industries and business that don't care about the public, workers, animals, and environment they exploit. *"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein* This is how 'free market' government exploits disasters to gain traction. Basically a 'do it all at once while no one is paying attention. Shh!' *"The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Society Stronger" by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkonson* Pretty much what the title says. *-"The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together" by Heather McGhee* *-"Black Genius: African American Solutions to African American Problems" a collection of essays* The top book is the most recent but the bottom book is still very relevant and inspiring. *"Alternatives to Privatizing Public Education and Curriculum by Daniel Ness and Stephen J. Farenga* This is really scary. The Shock Doctrine introduces the topic of charter schools, but this book goes much further into depth about the school systems in general (in America).
It is so disheartening how JP has charmed so many with the glamour of his esoteric academic vocabulary and use of misinterpreting classics like 1984 to bolster his arguments.
Orwell has been misinterpreted and misunderstood (and subsequently Co opted) by many. As controversial as it sounds, I believe the same regarding Ayn Rand.
Very few understand Orwell. The cameras were not main feature of Big Brother's world. The important issue was (and still is) a complex society's pressure to conform, ostracizing any non-conformists. The book focused on attitudes of the British Middle Class, and specifically points out that the 'Proles' were not on camera. If you missed that point, read the book again.
It always baffled me to see conservatives use 1984 to push their ideas when the book literally contains an entire chapter explaining Marx's historical materialism. I don't know if it's because americans are less familiar with marxist theories than europeans, and thus recoganzise them less, but the socialist inspirations of Orwell seems pretty obvious to me when you read the actual book. Anyway, great video, and much love from a country that isn't real.
The narrative of 1984 is against tyranny, embodied by IngSoc in the novel. If I recall correctly, it's in the part when Winston and Julia read Goldstein's book that historical materialism and it's relation to the revolution are explained, and even exalted. Seeing that historical materialism is a pivotal element of ingSoc, and seeing that Orwell denounces IngSoc as a tyranny, it's actually natural to see the novel as a vindication of the inherently flawed nature of ideologies founded on historical materialism. Of course, if one knows Orwell then also knows that he was criticising stalinism as a treason to socialism while vindicating a democratically planned society, but stating that as a proof of illogical conservatism is contingent on historical materialism being true, and therefore, democratic socialism being viable, which is a rather questionable assumption given the iron laws of olygarchies and almost 70 years of institutional economics theory development
@@alexiscolladosolis4257 This is indeed the chapter I was refering too. Of course, this passage is subject to many different interpretations. In my opinion, others works of Orwell, notoriously the animal farm, imply a particular interest for the treason of marxist ideals. As a consequence, I read this passage more as a sort of reference to a "pure" socialism rather than a critical analysis of historical materialism. These early concepts would have since be perverted and forgotten by the wider public, historical materialism being only a remnant of this (we can also notice that throughout the book, there is no explicit socialist rethoric from angsoc, at the contrary, angsoc is still a class society with a "proletariat", implying that the ideological base of the regime has been reduced only to the party's name). This idea of perversion of an original socialist utopia also echoes Orwell own experience in Spain. I'm obviously not an expert on the matter, and if we suppose that the author is dead, there is no reason to say that my reading is more valid than yours. In the end, even if we consider this part may be as you suggest a critical view on historical materialism, the book is still marked with a socialist tone and perspective. And of course, It doesn't mean conservative people can't find there own interpretations. I just remarked that the commentaries offered by conservatives like Peterson often lack these elements of context, wich, even if we don't fully agree with the authors opinion, are kinda necessary to make a constructive anlysis. ( moreover, I'm pretty sure Peterson, a cultivated man, is fully aware of Orwell's view and deliberately doesn't mention it) (sorry, this was way to long and is probably full of grammar mistakes, gotta remember these english lessons)
@Black Box Painting You're not wrong, however, one of the most common trait among the many form of conservatisms is the de facto assimilation of socialism and authoritarianism into one unique entity. Being an old heritage of the cold war, this equivalence is still today one of the big antisocialist argument from right wing people.
@@mrshindler2537 don't worry, I'm not a native english speaker myself and it's truly pleasant to have this kind of discussion with someone of the opposite view. Indeed, the theme around most of Orwell's literary work is that of the "betrayed revolution", something that makes the fullest of sense when taking into account his personal views and the context in which he lived. I personally don't take that chapter as a critique of historical materialism; on the contrary, Orwell's stance as a socialist seems evident through the input of Goldstein's theory and criticism of the party's course. However, what I would contend, like conservatives as Peterson would, is that such a position as those of Orwell is contentious at the very least. Taking into account that societies tend to be hierarchycal by nature, the notion of a democratically arranged socialist society and the veracity of historical materialism seem pretty wishfull. Furthermore, such a political project could easily become a double-edged sword if the practical difficulties of implementing it degenerate into a tyranny, which is what happens in the book with ingsoc and during civil war Catalonya, which is Orwell's main source of inspiration
@Black Box Painting "Most American conservatives are anti-authoritarian." Uh, this is more false than true. I think you mean they're anti-regulation of the market, which is something very different.
I read 1984 twice when I was 15. I talked to a right winger once about it and he was really confused that the book didn't say anything about forcing people to use their preferred pronouns lol.
Compelled speech and hate-speech that involve the forceful obedience regarding "unacceptable sayings" towards x & y & z are orweillein by definition. An orweillein State, just as it would force a populace to adopt the belief that 2+2=5, would force their populace to reject inherent biological binaries that they may hold to be true. Man and Woman do not exist -- and to use them would be offensive to those who do not identify as such. Man is a symbol and or label that embodies patriarchy which causes trauma to marginalized groups. It must not be uttered. Man is forbidden to be used, and any label that uses its prefix. It is Womxn.
@@1VETaLEK2 are you really gonna sit here and pretend that Conservatives don't equate political correctness or preferred pronouns with the party's newspeak in 1984? Because they absolutely do that.
Jordan Peterson actually does totally acknowledge Orwell's socialist leanings. One of the most famous pieces of video content of him even makes this totally explicit: the zizek/peterson debate. I don't think he actually does feel that orwell celebrates the west, just that he criticizes radical change for its proclivity for corruption, which Peterson does celebrate.
Was Zizek debate the only time JP made a refernece to Orwell? Because if not and this declaration isn't consistent with other references then it's an empty declaration, which would give same energy as "I'm not racist, but..."
@@Mish844 Your comment is entirely insubstantial: if (some random speculative conjecture) and (some other random speculative conjecture) then (vague and insubstantial remark with allusion to racism). Try again when you have a specific criticism of Peterson that you have actually bothered to research and can substantiate with references.
@@omp199 Funnily enough your comment was the perfect example of the thing you're describing. This is some meta humor, I'll admit. If you can't be bothered to respond then the fault is yours, not mine. Start taking responsibility for your incompetence. There is nothing vague or conjecturish about Peterson not lving up to an empty declaration like a person saying "I'm not racist but". And since I don't think it's possible to make it easier to understand, well, it say a lot about you.
It drove me crazy having to read there books for class and having to listen what the teacher was telling everyone these books were about and how they were simply just "communism bad" when the book was much more complex and mostly critiqued dictatorships and corruption more than anything else. A lot of people have a hard time separating dictatorships from communism because of the decades of propaganda that claim they are the same thing when communism as a concept diametrically opposes dictatorships. I've literally had teachers that read the definition out loud in class "a stateless, moneyless, and classless society" and then claimed it can't work because it always ends up being a STATE controlled economy run by dictators 🤦♂️
At that point I stopped listening to anything that teacher said. You can't completely misunderstand and ignore basic language and actually be equipped to teach people about those things.
Such a society is not a society at all. Without state to suppress it, classes will arise. Trade will be resimplified into cash as a placeholder, and the state will be established in order to protect individual and collective desires. You cannot have equal distribution of resources without either a material incentive to do so, or a state to enforce said distribution. We tried a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, and it didn't last, giving way to our current world because state and money are essential to large scale human society, and class is inevitable, whether it be through money, or state.
But they’re not really wrong. It’s like giving the definition of celibacy and the practical reality that happens whenever is tried. It can’t naturally and successfully happen unless humans are biologically changed.
A bit of insight about Jordan Peterson's "decline of Western Civilization" - if you substitute patriarchy for Western Civilization it becomes much more clear what he is actually talking about. Most of his commentary regarding "tradition" is about retaining those power structures and nothing more, no matter how he tries to pretend that it is based on a higher intellectual analysis of society and its purpose.
I never read Orwell until I was in my mid 30s, but my mode of thinking was already perfectly molded to him. I never had a father growing up, Orwell would have been perfect. I have so much love for the man. Wish I had met him.
Him going to fight against Franco and fascism in support of socialism is incredible. So many of us including myself vocally support our ideals, but push comes to shove we won't go to fight in another countries war to fight for those ideals. The far right often quote him thinking he would have supported their cause. Not realising he literally went to Spain to fight the far right and against their awful beliefs.
@@videogamenostalgia I just read the actual quote, and while she didn't say that the message was to "listen to authority figures" she still seems to have misunderstood the message, like most capitalists that read it.
@@videogamenostalgia Joe Biden said in his first congress adress "*mumbling* we the people... *cpu failure* are the government... *mumbling*" that is even worse lol
I like how this bloke literally spends the entire video breaking down the interpretations of “iTs LiKe OuR WoRlD” yet the comments are still filled with it. If your looking at 1984 with a political view then your reading it wrong. The book, unlike animal farm, does not take sides, it simply portrays the true extent of a dictatorship. The party is obviously a satire of Stalin’s Russia, but he never points your hand and goes “haha and here’s the Dictator and his actions” like in animal farm, instead he weaves a complicated tapestry of depression and mental obliteration to non politically portray and criticise one of the most political things known to man, authoritarian ideals.
@@caralho5237 this channel seems to be targeted at leftist, who hate Jordan Peterson for calling out Bill C-16 in Canada years ago. The audience you appeal to taints your work with bias.
Sensational content. Delighted the algorithm led me here. Love the delivery and style, being near metronomic in its timed pacing. So refreshing to come across detailed academic content with a splash of personality per the intro! Keep it up mate 👏👍
Orwell’s unpublished introduction to Animal Farm is explicitly critical of censorship in England where “unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.” Here, Orwell confronts the politics and power of culture. Orwell continues: “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” For more commentary on Orwell’s unpublished intro to AF, see Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone’s ‘The Consequences of Capitalism’
I remember that I had to write an essay about a novel of my choice and how hierarchy plays a role in it, specifically the acceptance or rejection of that hierarchy. I chose 1984 as an example of a warning against an hierarchy-not a specific ideology, just any system in general, all systems with enough power, being able to snake and slither their way into complete, unabiding control, to being able to make someone thing 2 plus 2 equals 5, to turn something as bright and enriching as hope and love into hopeless acts. The fact that 1984 shows us the power of this hierarchy, being able to dash and destroy and convert the protagonist from his rebellious ways of just wanting to feel human like us into abiding to every word the system says. 1984 isn't a story or a bash against Stalinism-it's a bash against every system of power wanting more power, and a prediction of our future of we let them control us too much, regardless of -isms or ideology.
You say it is not about left or right. I suppose you make this argument because of Hitler, but he was not copying any political norm because he was the one who invented totalitarianism. All the others that followed were all left wing. They fell in love with totalitarianism, it was the road to Utopia and they are still trying to sell it to us. Sadly they are making inroads due to missive investments from an extremely wealthy few.
Well argued. I know you're probably older now, but just think about the 1984 terms "wrongspeak" and "wrongthink". And what do you see in modern society? To think that a Trans-Woman is still a biological male is now "hate speech". Any hierarchy, duly elected & appointed by merit, can be chosen by the people to leave all their liberties intact & in fact to downsize government, if this hierarchy were to run on such a platform. Mitch from Australia.
@@mitchmccarron8337 you put up an interesting thought to experiment on. One could argue "wrongthink" and "wrongspeak" are similar to the concepts of "mens rea" and "actus reus," or being of "guilty mind" and "guilty act," respectively. What I think turns socially and politically unorthodox opinions into the categories of thoughtcrime is the active enforcement of the hierarchy in charge to determine that any sort of association with these undesirable stances are violations of the law, and enforcing all forms of surveillance and mindboggery to ensure no one has those thoughts, and even shun those who even considered those thoughts. As an American, the best example I can give was the Red Scare of the 20th century, where an entire culture in America was created with a "Better dead than Red" attitude. Communists were profiled as being inherently evil and anti-American, looked shady and subversive, and could have even been your neighbor. Any mentions, indications, or perceptions of your actions being in support of anything remotely socialist was deemed a possible threat to the American way, and it really peaked under the McCarthyism boom, and during the Vietnam War. McCarthyism became a 20th century witch hunt, complete with falsified accounts, fake documents, unfounded assumptions, and various other tactics to try and "expose" certain people as secret Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists. During Vietnam, two primary ways of thinking were created in how one thought of the government: "love it or leave it," and protests. On one side, anyone who dared dislike or disagree with the government was considered a revolutionary, someone worthy of being locked up into a nut house to be looked at, even if they had valid reasons to dislike the government. On the other, a militant form of protests were spurring that aimed to destroy government property and make themselves seen rather than heard, to force you to acknowledge them not for the merit of their cause, but for how large of a spectacle they made. Neither side was in the right. Continue that into today, and more and more surveillance methods are being used. Any usage of the word "bomb" on a phone call is immediately flagged and looked at, an indicator of some of the early developments of turning something into a thoughtcrime: paranoia of constantly being watched and heard. Think about it: the demographically largest democratic country has routinely flirted the edge of 1984 styles of government during one of the darkest times in the most tumultuous century of humanity. I can't say much about today that I feel like would get some people biting at my neck, but all I'll say is that there is a difference between public and government perception of what's legal and what's punishable right now. As far as some people are concerned, any form of trivialities towards their group is considered a direct attack on their people, but it also varies from person to person. However, the government will let you say anything you want in a public space as long as it's not an active threat against someone's life, I believe. In all honesty, the American government will let you actively preach the removal of all minorities in America whilst carrying a loaded firearm, burning the American flag and marching around town, as long as you don't actively and physically harm someone. The moment we delve into true thoughtcrime, in my opinion, is when the government itself begins to actively force people to consider anything the government doesn't agree with as the enemy of everything, the true terror that wants to destroy you all, while also keeping the enemy extremely vague, and their ideas isolated from the people to avoid any possibility of diverging thoughts-a monopoly on your mind and its choices.
The irony of saying journalists in the UK have the freedom to say whatever they like in a country where someone was sued for saying something mildly insulting about JK Rowling is deeply ridiculous
@@adambaker4590 I mean, it's very insulting, but it also seems like an opinion, which should typically be protected speech, especially since the Nazis didn't even call themselves Nazis either, it was a derogatory term.
@StormSought It's not only very insulting but it's defamatory, which is why the guy was sued to begin with (since the UK doesnt have a First Amendment or free speech..). People may try to say "it's just my opinion" but that's just a weak excuse for what people really believe. If a person genuinely thinks JK Rowling is a nazi, I'd be willing to bet money that same person also wishes death or harm on her. Why? "Because Nazi's deserve it." People use that term as a way to dehumanize others, which makes it real easy to treat them like shit. All I'm saying is the Nazi's were responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, so it's a bit wild to be calling the author of Harry fuckin Potter a nazi just because they believe that a biological male is a man and a biological female is a woman.. It's always "the most accepting and tolerant among us" that wish the cruelest fates upon those they disagree with.
@@adambaker4590 I mean, I don't think it's ridiculous to call someone a nazi when they hang out with nazis, which she does. that's an observation. you just agree with her. that doesn't make her correct or not a bigot, or indeed, not a nazi.
A fan from Brazil here. Great video, Tom. We're currently living under a right-wing government here, so Orwell is kind of an "official" reference amongst the sympathizers of the president. I'd love to see your take on Hannah Arendt's work as well. Thanks.
Reality really is stranger than fiction. A book coming up with the idea of "doublethink", being critical of it, and in the end being used for doublethink purposes.
One more brazillian here. And one more of us who is amazed at how Orwell was accurate in describing how an authoritarian regime (in our case, a fascist one) is able to brainwash people into following it.
"the proposition that underlies Western culture is that there's a transcendent morality […] predicated on the idea of God" Well, by that definition, the Taliban and IS could be considered part of 'Western culture'. I don't think that JP would agree with me, though.
You're making an invalid connection. Western culture and the Taliban can be based on the same proposition while still having different implementations. Muslim culture after all has the same proposition, yet in practice it has developed differently to western culture.
@@benharris7358 because western cultural abandoned the idea of transcendent moral truth, otherwise they would have developed the same, we don’t base our laws on religion, Hindus knew this idea was best first, however many people in the west have been tricked to abandon the pursuit of an objective moral standard in all aspects of life simply because it shouldn’t be applied to laws because it can’t ever be fully solidified as the TRUTH. Which is why the law only deals in what we can PROVE. Not what is believed even by the majority. Because beliefs are subjects to change. But the evidence of any crime once committed will stay the evidence of that crime.
@@ItReallyIsiPOD Cultures peak and decline. They appear and disappear. What may be decried as the pinnacle of society now, may be glorified or thought abhorrent by people 200 years in either direction. It comes down to the dice roll that is when and where you were born.
I actually had a teacher who had us read 1984 and animal farm in class and analyzed them in an anti-socialist perspective, which at the time, I wholeheartedly believed. I liked these books so much I re-read them over the summer, and without him to skew the raw words to fit his narrow perspective, I developed a better understanding of the books, and how I truly understood Orwell. Ironically, his attempt to fear-monger about socialism, he started me down a path that would make me a socialist. This was the same teacher who had us write an essay about how global warming wasn’t real (he gave us two articles, one denying it and one poorly attempting to say it exists, and because English grading is, in his words “subjective” and he believed global warming is a conspiracy made up by time magazine, if you wanted to not fail, you defended the idea) and showed Milton Friedman speech’s in class. Knowing what I know now, he was basically crazy, and most of what I learned from him is how to critically listen to the ideas of someone meant to be an authority figure, and to not believe what anyone tells you without looking into it yourself.
@@artonio5887 Today I've had someone tell me that transwomen are biological women because everyone is biological. If I do not accept this so called "scientific truth" based purely on the amputation of nuance, I am transphobic. What do you make of this ?
@@Antiteshmis - don't know about Artur but what I make of it is that you want to start an argument so you can attempt tp bully others into your point of view.... good luck with that
@@danielcrafter9349 And what would my point of view be ? That biological sex exists and that the increasing trend towards unscientific dogma being pushed through the education system is just as worrying as the example given ?
At the end of the video my mind was blown, the way you tied the points together in your conclusion was remarkable and very impactful. Amazing job and amazing video
Kinda funny that it seems that the professor didn't mention that detail. He sure likes to pick and chose certain parts of Orwell's writings to fit his lectures which isn't very professional if you ask me.
It is the 20% that matter. The rest has no political power. Furthermore, Orwell couldn't know about AI, if he knew, he would have let the state use AI to watch all people.
@@s1lentsound Yes. But it's not a good habit to be overly attached to your own views, to the point that you resist changing them when they're clearly incorrect.
animal farm could also easily be used as a critisism of the american revolution, where literal slave owners were talking about "all men are created equal"
Man, what a production! Thanks for this amazing documentary! Love it! I cant imagine the work and study to do that! Greetings from this humble teacher from Brazil!
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a little bit late to the video, but I just finished reading "Animal Farm" in German. Actually, one of the most interesting part of the book to me was the preface in the book:
>>In the US, the book was rejected by 20 publishers. Although the war was over, most of the Ukrainian copies were confiscated by the American military authorities in Germany and given to the Red Army for destruction. Orwell once wrote, "Every line of my serious work fights, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism as I understand it." But when Animal Farm appeared in a pocket edition in the US, the quote was changed. "Every line of my serious work fights directly or indirectly against totalitarianism." Period. Just like the pigs and the Ministry of Truth in the novel of 1984, the Americans simply erased what was uncomfortable for them.
Since you mention Ukraine, the only version of Animal Farm with an originally published preface by Georg Orwell was the Ukrainian translation. He talks about himself being a part of the socialist movement and how the soviet regime had caused harm to that movement.
Everyone does.
George Orwell was a very complex individual and people paint him in different colors depending on their political beliefs.
As I am German myself: which version of the book does include this foreword?
Wow I’m American and started that book the other day, that’s kind of unsettling
@@felixfungle-bung4688 ...This video's nice but what about the Peterson-Video of
'Some More News', its unbelievable.
What i find ironic is that when Orwells books were first published they were condemned for being anti-capitalist (in the wests case) or anti-communist (in the USSRs case), but once they became massive cultural icons and adopted by the public, all of a sudden they’re criticisms of the other side.
Can't speak for Russia/USSR.
But that's America and more specifically American Conservatism in a nutshell.
The thing about Orwell is that he was one of those rarest of political animals: willing to criticize his own side for failing its ideals. Hence why so many people struggle to comprehend his message.
well, yea, Orwell was a socialist
@@nomisunrider6472I don’t think it’s right when people point to communism and say “socialism bad” it’s just incredibly stupid.
It’s like pretending America is a place of freedom and bliss…
If you aren’t willing to criticise the bad actors among your own people, you are worse than them.
If you aren’t willing to critise and be critised by the people outside your own ideals, you are worse than them.
It’s such a simple thing yet people make it so complicated and stupid.
@@draketurtle4169 I couldn't say you're worse than them. I don't know what standards I'd be basing my claim on.
It's rather that realistically you'd be identifying with your own ideas which deems proper argumentation useless as you would not talk to the people with different ideas to reach a good conclusion but to just protect your own identity.
"We truly live in a society."
George Orwell
Orwell was what we call a real GAMER
Gamers rise up 😎
@@sterlingmorse5409 Can't rise up out of your chair and play your game at the same time.
George Castanza
@@orionsghost9511 standing desks are the new meta after the gaming chair nerf of 2020
As an American kid forced to read Animal Farm in middle school, I came away from it thinking socialism was good and the Soviet Union was bad. Which, like, was pretty close to what is seems Orwell intended, yet bafflingly, many of my classmates did not have the same reading. While I saw the animals uprising and establishment of a fairer society as aspirational, with the following decay of their rules being the result of bad actors corrupting the fundamental goodness of their initial goals, many others saw it as doomed from the beginning. They saw the ending as unavoidable, that the final assertion that the creatures were unequal as the ultimate truth, that that was the point all along. And that really, really depressed me. Because it meant, they were the pigs.
There will inevitably be a hierarchy or multiple hierarchies established and recognized in any organized society. It’s in our nature and present even among the most benevolent of groups. In and of itself then it’s a relatively neutral condition of living with one another and recognizing talent and competence.
However, while some degree of competent individuals who are empathetic will hold positions within a hierarchy such as say in community leadership, there will also be bad actors looking to position themselves to try to dominate any hierarchy relevant to their own skills and interests, thereby corrupting it. And often these individuals have an advantage in doing so because they are both cunning and ruthless enough to seize control where there is either a position of authority already in place or a power vacuum waiting to be filled.
What you’re speaking of is only rationally aspirational then in a hypothetical world that either doesn’t take that fully into account or which hasn’t always demonstrated that, which would not be the world that we have ever or will ever live in, with our entire history across civilizations illustrative of that being the case.
Any version of a pragmatic utopia being established will inevitably be short lived following any revolution, no matter well intended - just like in Animal Farm - because there will always be “pigs” waiting to corrupt the fundamental goodness you speak of. Acknowledgement of that fundamental truth is recognizing the truth of humans living in organized societies. It does not indicate being in support of it. Our approval is immaterial. Reality continues to exist despite our objections to it.
Therefore, one doesn’t have to be a pig to understand that pigs will always exist, because they have always existed and acted, time and time again, just as you would expect they would. Your classmates may or may not be the pigs, but their recognition of such creatures existing to inevitably corrupt your or anyone else’s efforts of fundamental goodness is accurate if any gain or power can be achieved in the restructuring or upheaval of the order of things. And unfortunately that has been and always will be the case.
@@amostlyreasonableguy Well said. Would you distinguish between voluntary and involuntary hierarchies? Do you think hierarchies are inherently bad but inevitable? What would you say to a reality where those in the bottom of the hierarchies (forced ones) will revolt daily and make our real society a living hell? Would then the idea of a soviet-dystopia be more attractive and similar things could be said then that capitalism is an utopian thought and reality continues to exist despite our objections to it?
Would you recognize a system that is not utopian or doesn't want classless organized societies but will simply abolish states and private ownership of natural resources (I am personally conflicted about ideas that abolish states as there are practical concerns of a stateless society. Especially concerns about who can use force and how can wrong doers be punished. Will a state be inevitable even in a stateless society, how crime can be deterred and more questions along the same line of thought.) A place where I can choose to be in a hierarchy because I value a persons abilities and I can then choose to not be in that hierarchy and leave.
TH-cam comments can often be ambiguous in their intentions so allow me to clarify my intent for these questions. I am not trying to make a point. I am really interested in your thoughts and what I might learn from your insights.
Thanks :)
@@amostlyreasonableguy saying there will always be a hierarchy is just baseless speculation, your comment is like the whole "utOpiA is impossible bEcAusE rEaSoNs" you're just making assumptions based on speculation.
@@TheSMR1969 no he isn't. He is spot on.
@@TheSMR1969
So you are technically correct when saying someone is wrong when they make the claim "Hierarchies will always exist." in the same way you'd be correct to say someone is wrong when they say "The sun will always 'rise' tomorrow.". But by saying this, you seem to be missing the subtext, which is "Hierarchies will always exist... until something substantial comes and radically changes how humans act."
But you are almost totally wrong to say that the thought is baseless. If you look at any point in the history of human evolution (or any group creature, for that matter), you will see a system of hierarchies. So there is a very solid base to build the claim that this will continue on for quite some time.
Side note, your post claiming that his position is baseless is, in itself, baseless. You are the one speculating that surely there is no history to back up his claim, and then you go on to assume that he is wrong, without saying why you think he is wrong.
But you may be right, so if you'd like to go into detail as to WHY he is wrong, I'd love to hear it.
I don’t think Orwell predicted the future so much as commented on what was already going on in the world
Yeah that’s literally what he did lol
@@Ismael-kc3ry ok it sounded good in my head
Exactly. 1984 comments on something that's always been a part of humanity, and will always be a part of humanity. That of Power, humans trying to become superior to other humans, clas divide, human bias, perception of reality, language, etc etc. That's why it feels like 1984 predicted the future, because it's not just a book about politics, it's a book about human nature. So as long as we continue to be humans, 1984 will have something to say about whatever time period it exists in
Yup, commentary on WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and even later McCarthyism, and Classism. Spun a tale expertly about leaning into the actual propaganda dealt to the public and propaganda sent abroad about the status of the country their in. I recently rewatched the Imitation Game about Alan Turing
Though I think the red coveralls are representative of people missing the point of the book as they play into the fantasy of the “thought police”
I feel like that's sort of the point of any dystopian writing. Pointing out perceived current problems through hyperbole, by taking them to their extreme conclusion, by asking "what would happen if we went on like this?".
I read ''1984'' in November of '84. Thought it would be cool to read the novel in its namesake year. The experience was eerie because I had just been transferred to a newly built prison where there were cameras & microphones in the halls, cell lights that were never turned off, Reagan's face plastered everywhere, nukes called Peacekeepers, and missiles lobbed nonchalantly back & forth in the Middle East. Couldn't help but think old George called good money. Still, Aldous may have came closer with his hedonistic world that keeps discontent at a minimum.
Both 1984 and Brave New World, especially the latter, borrowed from "We" by Eugene Zamyatin, published in Russia in 1924 and suppressed by the communists.
Prison?...
@@totallynotsam584 I dk. Maybe he's a guard.
@@totallynotsam584 lol they have books in prison
@@danielgautreau161 why are you assuming that?
George Orwell writing a book about talking animals is why us Americans can't have healthcare :(
And why you consume so much beef
@Karl Marx
A spectre is haunting Europe!
Quick, Karl, to the worker-mobile!
🤨Have you ever went through America's socialized Healthcare?? I can tell you what it looks like, I grew up in it all my life. It's the military tricare system. 6 hours in the ER vs 30 minutes with civilian care. My grandfather just got his shoulder surgery only after 40 years. They still cover up quite a bit too. The reason isn't talking animals, it is because it simply doesn't work for a country as vast and diverse as ours.
@@Alaska-bi2nm Canada is bigger, has a tenth of the population, a less than a tenth of a budget, and still delivers high-quality healthcare to the entire population with the state, for less money than the American system requires as well
@@kendomyers why not labour locomotive?
When I read the book as a kid, I felt the main point of Animal Farm was that it'd be okay if Snowball managed to stay in charge. I can't imagine how someone would read Animal Farm and conclude that the farmers were the good guys.
Lots of people don’t know that Animal Farm is an allegory of the Soviet Union.
@@agaspversilia Thats the entire damn point of the book, what do you mean lots of people don't know lol?
@@WiggleJimmy they're saying that lots of people are complete imbeciles
Snowball wasn't perfect, but he was no Napoleon. Just like Trotsky
I wanted to interpret it like that BUT Snowball paved the path to his own exile. The innocent corruption of stealing apples and milk for working hard with their brains is directly what allowed everything else.
ah yes georgia orwen's 1969 "animal crossing" one of my favourites
Villager's soulless eyes tho
It's George Orwen* common mistake bruv
@@beckymcdonald9529 oh damn thx for noting, i didnt proof read before commenting
@@Maxthemilli0n don't worry, its a shit joke anyway
@@tranquilisimo8774 i'm sorry you didn't like it
Interesting. I always saw 1984 as a complaint against totalitarian government of whatever political stripe, nor just far left
Yes and you were right
Yep. You were correct in your first thought.
Yes it is actually a a bit of a neo liberal conspiracy to portray it and Animal farm as anti left. George Orwell remained a strong socialist all the way to his death bed.... though he did have some hopes of the democratic west being a force for good.... they were high hopes indeed.
@@msbramble176 i was going to say he was a full on socialist i dont understand why people think hes this pro capitalism at all costs libertarian kinda guy
@@SEAL7471 Ha ha yes that angle has been purposefully pushed... Orwell was very hopeful about US democracy... he would be turning in his grave..
Much of Orwell's work is against (governmental) oppression, so it's very strange to see arguments about whether it was for or against a particular political position, as though there is any government or political position that is immune to tyranny.
He was a democratic socialist. This is a fact. Not understanding this is, to a large extent, not understanding the nature of Orwell's works, in which he defends this perspective.
@@ANovaMaquinadoTempo I guess you don't believe in the death of the author.
But I'm glad to learn that social democracy is the one form of government that's immune to corruption... Is the snarky comment I want to make, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Which leads to the question: what are you saying? How does asserting Orwell's political position in any way address my comment?
@@ReturnOfHeresy Orwell wrote in the text "Why I write". "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
He understood that this was not only relevant, but central to his role as a writer. If you can't see that this is relevant, I can't help you. I understand that respecting the author's original intent as something relevant. I would add that he was not against government, this is a completely wrong and distorted view of Orwell's thinking, he defended the union of equality and freedom, of socialism and democratic radicalization. If a government were democratic (or radically democratic), and egalitarian, in Orwell's view, it would tend to be less corrupt.
@@ANovaMaquinadoTempo I didn't say he was against government, I said much of his work is against governmental oppression. Your quote supports that "against totalitarianism".
As for the rest, I am a bit curious: how does, for example, Nineteen Eighty-Four argue for a particular political position (e.g., for democratic socialism)?
@@ReturnOfHeresy "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
It's good to see the full quote, of course he was against totalitarianism, but he ardently defended democratic socialism. This shows up clearly in Animal Farm, for example, in the sympathy he shows in Snowball, a pig clearly inspired by Trotsky. In addition to the critical characterization of Jones, the capitalist farm owner. The highly negative characterization of the pig Napoleon in this book is an attack on Stalin, as well as Big Brother in 1984. He, Orwell, was a libertarian socialist, radically democratic, and deeply anti-Stalinist this is especially clear in
Homage to Catalonia. To think that this reduces the defense of socialism is to misunderstand the libertarian currents of socialism. A lot of people don't understand, but for a person like me, who has a doctorate studying politics, far from contradictory, Orwell's speeches are obvious, and show his positions, even in literary books.
I find it deeply regrettable how misunderstood Orwell is and I commend this video, as this video at least tried to show what Orwell actually stood for.
1984 gotta be one of the most strumentalised books in history. People want to prove their point and sound smart so much that they actually forget what this story is about. Pity... it still is one of my favourite books, I came to associate it with my high school years, for me it evokes a strange feeling of nostalgia. The underlying feeling of anxiety and pervasive lack of hope... as far as atmosphere goes that’s exactly how my hisghschool years were - hopeless. It’s definitely one of those pieces of literature that I’ll never forget.
Lol yep!
Talking about cameras, surveillance, "Big Brother."
It's like... "bro, you know the real scary thing about 1984 that Orwell was making a point about-- the psychology/sociology of a society filled with people mentally broken down and indoctrinated well enough that they can simultaneously consciously acknowledge and believe two mutually exclusive, contradictory, incompatible things?
That such cognitive dissonance could exist and be systemicly reinforced-- and even become self-sustaining as every individual becomes a narc against others-- even those with whom their realistic interests align; people of their own socioeconomic strata?"
*crickets**
It's so wild. I guess that would blue screen their brains though. Orwell was right, lol.
Ngl, the idea of someone writing a ground breaking book that is universal and was meant as self reflection, but people constantly use it to justify their own option and make their opponents seem like the bad guys can be a book itself, even one orwel may wright himself if he saw the reactiona his books got
One of the central themes in the background of 1984 is also the three empires, constantly allying and then switching and being at war with each others.
This directly mirrors how the western Empires suddenly did a switcheroo and were pro Soviets in order to be anti Nazis.
It also shows that they essentially force each other into staying totalitarian. Each side might even want to be less authoritarian but they fear it would hive their enemy an opening to destroy them.
Which is kind of what happened to the USSR in the end. Big Gorbi wanted his country to be more democratic, and the western efforts to bring it down came to fruition right then.
Huh, I always understood that they didn’t actually attempt to destroy each other so there public has a common enemy and the elite remain in power. They could nuke each other but then there population doesn’t have an enemy, better just to send countless men into the meat grinder to keep the war machine turning
The west was never pro-communist nor pro-soviet. The west were steadfastly anti-nazi and sided with the russians only so long as it was necessary to defeat nazi Germany. Nor were the west totalitarian - this is evidenced by the democratic election of President Truman in 1945, and by Winston Churchill losing government by election in July 1945 and becoming the leader of the British opposition. Where exactly is the totalitarianism on display here?
If the Western Empires switched to being pro-Soviet in order to be anti Nazi, that should be considered a point in their favour presuming one thinks the USSR was any better than the Nazis. Which it wasn't.
It also of course mirrors how the USSR switched from propping up the Nazis [for what I realize were entirely sensible strategic and ideological reasons, respectively to keep the Nazis looking west first for enemies, and to try to let the Nazis destroy Europe and allow a revolution later] to being vehemently anti-Nazi in their own defense and condemning those who had been fighting since 1939 as insufficiently anti-Nazi.
But neither Germany or the US are totalitarian states. And when the Soviets joined the allies, it was only for a common goal of being anti-Nazi. But being anti-Nazi isn't synonymous with being _pro_ Soviet.
You can't really understand how 1984 relates to British imperialism without understanding what the British were doing in Burma during the time that Orwell was there.
They were engaged in an enormous systematic campaign of physical and psychological terror designed not just to stymie resistance but to disintegrate existing social and economic structures and re-engineer them in a way that made it easier for the British to control and exploit the people and the geography.
They murdered, they stole children, they interred whole communities.
They tried to set class against class, ethnic group against ethnic group, creed against creed, even brother against brother.
They set about destroying not just physical infrastructure but the psychic and cultural infrastructure. Anything that provided any sort of stable base for society as it existed independent of British interests.
1984 is what Orwell saw as the future not in the sense of ephemeral political ideologies but something more simple and fundamental.
All encompassing totalitarian rule by an abusive and exploitative ruling class.
That's just the English being English. They were doing it when Mel Gibson was shouting freedom and they still do it in Ireland and inside their rump Island Empire.
They did it so much throughout the World that it even got it's own term..."Divide and Conquer".
@@TheDentedHelmet yes, I was thinking about it in regards of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Brits went there and made a mess. Then, Palestine and Israel.
I fell like I'm missing something, beyond Churchill ordering to shoot and sink a French fleet during WWII... (As a display of power)
@@Weissenschenkel It was not a display of power, it was so that the Germans didn't capture it. If I am correct the French surrendered and the English captured the fleet.
This adds new meaning to the name of one of my favorite bands, *The Mission of Burma.*
everything you said is correct except "a ruling class", that's where you started pandering to the class struggle ideology of Marxism. Orwell just said totalitarianism isn't distinct to one ideology, so USA saying communists are totalitarian while unjustly doing experiments on their population and Soviets calling capitalism, a totalitarian imperialistic ideology while sending people to gulags is what Orwell criticised.
this is the most British looking dude I've seen, simultaneously 65 and 14 years old
What dose it mean to look british anyone can be brittish. Ive got a british passport and thats all it means to be british.
@@southwestsaxon they were talking about the stereotypical look of the (white) British man
@@truedarklander but theirs no certein typical british man coz we are a mix and theirs no such thing as a english ethnisity.
JUST LIKE MOST US DUPES , OBSESSED WITH SHALLOW PREFERENCES.
@@southwestsaxon My dude that's why I said "Stereotypical (white) British" dude.
theres something intensley ironic about orwells work being used as a tool to add a sense of authority to various political statements
The irony with Orwell's "predicting the future" thing is that he was responding to things currently going on during that time. I guess history really does repeat itself
Only because we allow it too. We’re too easily manipulated. Here in Australia the Right wing Governments claim to be fiscally more responsible than the left wing. But looking at the Reserve bank of Australia figures show that the Righr always leave the country in a worse fiscal state than the left when there’s a change of Government. It’s our Double speak. I guess MAGA is currently yours.
@@logangustavson oh, ok
@@mariogariazzo2024 Well, you can't argue with that logic:)
There were governments mandated tvs that would spy and blast ads 24/7 in his book. Today we have a "free" tv doing exactly that, exept its not government mandated and people are doing it to themselves.
No, that didnt happen in 1984, yes he did predict some things
It’s not repeating itself. It’s been a constant through line that is ever evolving and shifting with often large parallels but the video perfectly showcases this in the end by defining what the West is by often defining what it ISNT. So saying the West, as defined here, has an enemy doesn’t mean it’s repeating itself, sure being in conflict again might seem like repetition but the conflict between capitalism and communism isn’t the same as imperialism for colonized peoples or democracies versus Islamic militants for example
I dont know this youtuber but he is the most british looking person Ive ever seen.
Agree 🤣
Or heard
A chap of Western culture, if he exists that is.
Oh is that a person? I thought it was a talking pile of biscuits next to a cup of tea in a posh garden. kidding ofc, Tom has a great voice I could listen to his analysis all day
That's interesting. When I saw his face I thought he has to be Slavic.
I’m always amazed to see both “Animal Farm” and “1984” consistently appearing on the American Library Association’s list of frequently challenged books: the reason for the challenges is often that they “promote Communism”. Obviously they are challenged by those who have no idea of their actual content.
Land of the free, of course
it's like a rational analysation of corruption and overzealous authoritarianism hits too close to home, eh?
it's like america's two party democracy is often undemocratic and deadly to those who oppose it, and that the two parties serve one ever growing group in terms of influence
have you ever looked at the majority of challengers? mentally ill crackpots ( chemicals in the water and chem trails are common) followed by socialists who want it banned for the obvious reasons. seriously read beyond the headlines.
@@vultureTX001 George Orwell was a socialist, he would be against capitalism and especially fascism
Orwell: Newspeak simplifies language in order to prevent people from properly communicating their ideas
Boomers: "Language is too complex now! Just like in 1984!"
I think the obvious key point is compelled speech by the government, not perceived ideologies or level of complexity within the form proposed.
He was right about language being weaponized by totalitarian forces, he was just wrong about the way of achieveng it. And you can't blame him because modern leftism isn't based on Marxism-Leninism nearly as much as on Franchfurt Shool and postmodernism.
@@TheTsuryuu but they aren’t being compelled into any speech by the government. That fundamentally is not what they are responding to. If I sucker punch you and then lie and say “I was trying to kill a wasp that was flying near your head”, that doesn’t change the reality that you just got punched in the head. Likewise, we shouldn’t take people seriously who cry “compelled speech” anytime someone doesn’t find one of their jokes funny.
@@TheTsuryuu no level of complexity was crucial in order to prevent people from potentially having thoughts or saying things that might change their loyalty to the party
I think it’s similar but not the same as what we have now. Nowadays, words get softened to be more palatable and help to normalize what was previously unacceptable or otherwise unattractive behavior.
Easy Examples:
Pedophile -> minor attracted person
Cross dresser -> nonbinary
Transsexual-> transgender
With these changes, “gone” is the perception of these outliers being perverted weirdos, prostitutes or strippers in the shady part of town. No one would have originally approved of parents turning their children into trans sexuals. But it seems to be accepted because now it’s about ~gender~ and how people have been socialized to feel these. I say seem, because the majority of people do not agree with this at all but feel forced to use the newspeak in order to not be cancelled by the fascists.
As I always have to tell students in my science classes when I hear them talking about Animal Farm "The pigs were villains, but was the farmer the hero?"
Takes them a bit to realize while the book warns about the revolution betrayed, not having the revolution wasn't the answer either.
That's right. The book is a tragedy. And the most tragic part of the whole thing is at the end where the animals look into the farmhouse and see no difference between the pigs and the farmers.
You're a great teacher, use to love stuff like that. But only one teacher was playful and had fun teaching us. I wish your profession got more appreciation as the great gatekeepers of every nation/sociates future. The future belongs to the educators. I really believe that.
@@Libikuroi Always cringe a little when I walk by a class and the teacher is screaming or just how done with their job they seem to be. Unfortunately the way out society works they have to keep at it even after they have burned out and don't love the job anymore.
@@Libikuroi thinking someone is a great teacher by couple of paragraphs. I hope you are still in school
As long as people aren't equating the farm to democracies, marginal or otherwise, in which reform is possible.
I was banned from Twitter so this is just like when George Orwell wrote Animal Crossing
Edit: Please for the love of God I just wanted to make a shitpost not create a debate thread
I’d play an Animal Farm game that looks like Animal Crossing
Jorge Orwin 1894!!!
Constructing a caricature of the other side for which to slay is what the actual assholes do.
Hey Mexican Tim Pool. Free speech doesn't stop when you walk into a wal-mart, Twitter is a public forum, what's the difference.
@@ethantoise4073 yeah but a physical business can kick you out for causing chaos, same with Twitter
I tell people often that 1984 is in no small way an extended complaint about working for the BBC. Few tend to believe me and yet.
I work for the german goverment (taxes and stuff) and the book (at least in the beginning) reminded me of my job in a surprising number of moments
JP hasn't made any such claim. It's almost like you have shoehorned JP into this video to get more views. An otherwise good video that loses credibility by denouncing JP in unfounded and arbitrary smears.
@@danielfletcher9080 I'm not the creator of this vid Sunny Jim, maybe you should address the person who did...
@@danielfletcher9080 Well, is it the case or not that JP cited Orwell's 1984 as a celebration of British freedom of the press, whilst 1984 is a critique about both right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism, including British censorship and absence of actual freedom of the press...? Is it the case or not that JP uses 1984 to blindly criticize "Socialism" as a whole, even though its author was himself a Socialist, albeit a Libertarian/Democratic & anti-Stalinist one? I mean Peterson might be a great psychologist & life coach or whatever, but when it comes to politics he's just as caricatural and clueless as my drunk great uncle is
@@quentinbongard9046 in what way is 1984 a critique of right wing govts given Oceania is explicitly Stalinist state?.The two minute hate and the campaign against Goldstein satirizes Stalin's removal of Trotsky and the show trials of the 1930s .This was not Hitlers forte or Mussolini or Franco's The rewriting of history and airbrushing out of politically inconvenient rivals is the USSR.
JP has a real knack for being very wrong about things, but thinking he is right.
He has a talent for looking smart while telling bullshit.
"The proposition that underlies Western culture is that there's a transcendent morality predicated on the idea of God"
I guess the guy forgot about the Russian orthodox church. I don't know who the guy is (I just watched to see how people misinterpret 1984) but he doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
A
@@pplelo9364 Also lets toootaly forget all The Other religions That was practiced before christianity came and fucked Them over. Like irish peagans, norse mythos, along with greek mythos. Generaly places That are refered to as part of The West, That didnt worship The Christian god.
@@pplelo9364 forgot about Islam too
I'm so happy that you talked about how he's a socialist that hates authoritarianism. I'm tired of people being half with the book and not really seeing his message
And I'm a capitalist that hates money
You people are lunatics
„Democratic socialism“ aka communism light
@@skippityblippity8656 lite*
@@skippityblippity8656 no matter what you want to call it, its still better than capitalism and the exploitation we see with an ever rising inequality
@@florida12341000
Why would you assume inequality to be a bad thing?
People: " this isn't like 1984 we don't have cameras in our homes and the government isn't spying on us how silly "
Snowden: "well....."
I hate how people can be so "literal"
Orwell didnt predict the future we dont do the two minutes of hate after work, and there is no not a tv looking at us all time, kids dont sell their parents to the goverment.
Yeah true bro,
we just scream at whatever mass media tell us, we carry 24/7 a cellphone, and kids in canada can send their parents to prison for not using their pronouns.
@@christiangonzalez6945 oh boy do I feel silly
@@christiangonzalez6945 we do its called a twitter pile on - I can do this for most
@@robinhoneyman4444 and most people also hate it
@@christiangonzalez6945 when has anyone being sent to prison for not using their pronouns
One of my takeaways from 1984 was the explanation of "doublethink" and how realistic it is. People doublethink everyday and it is peculiarly satisfying when you catch yourself doing the same
Is double think when inner party members were allowed to think two contrasting ideas at the same time while thinking they are both true?
@@noahwiebe2558 yes, both inner and outer. Like, employees of the ministry of truth changed previously published material as per the party's wishes and yet chose to not see any inconsistency in the tall claims that the party perfectly predicts everything. O'Brian too, when he held the piece of paper which was irrefutable evidence that Aaronson, Rutherford and the other guy weren't the criminals they were accused to be, he put it in the incinerator like thing and chose to 'erase' the memory of that piece of evidence ever existing making only the party's claims true. Okay, this was long lmao
Yes, see transgenderism.
@@Fr33zeBurn gender identity differs from beliefs
@@arpangangopadhyay420 Sorry what? Either you believe in biological gender or you believe it is a social construct you can't hold both to be true.
"Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand" could be a series.
LMAO. Exactly
It sort of is already, just from multiple channels rather than a single channel
I remember reading Animal Farm when I was maybe 12 or 13 years old, and discussing it with my English teacher at the time. Being 12, I was only passingly aware of the mainline interpretation of Animal Farm as a takedown of the USSR, and while the parallels are obvious, I asked my teacher why interpretation was so limited. The entire thrust of the novel - the actions of the pigs, overthrowing the tyrannical farmer only to institute their own hypocritical tyranny in his wake, encapsulated by the most famous "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" maps almost perfectly onto the Founding Fathers of the United States. "All animals are equal" is even a very nearly direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. I'm not even American, but my teacher immediately launched into a voracious defence of the text, saying that it no way could be understood as a skewering of American political values and that such a reading was ahistoric. I retorted - I never claimed it to be historic, I just thought it was weird that this text that, on its own merits, is equally sound allegory for the founding myths of both America and the USSR is only ever spoken of in terms of a skewering of the latter and never the former. After several more minutes of lecturing, I dropped the issue.
Discussing it later with other teachers and eventually university colleagues, you'd get about 50/50, either this kind of "no it couldn't possibly be!" pearl-clutching, or a knowing eye-roll indicating that everyone knows its true, but you can't say it out loud without risking the ire of a classicist who can't read.
1. this never happened.
2. you really just compared the USSR's deep dive into an authoritarian hellscape to the implementation of a federal government for the US by the founding fathers.
@@JohnJohn-yp5vp I think it's more about the slavery part of US History that Sailor PlanetMars was comparing to.
1.It might be true, it might not. I read 1984 when I was 14-15,and remember finding it a bit naive and contributing that to the fact that it was written in 1940s,not seeing the forest for the trees.
2.He did, and he is right, from some point of view. Both were revolutions that started by overthrowing of the "farmer", then proclaim freedom and equality for all, only to limit it for certain groups of people. It's not a perfect analogy, rarely something is, but certainly is a valid point.
@@edwinhuang9244 But the American revolution wasn't over slavery, it was a system that existed outside of it. Its like calling America when it was fighting in ww2 the bad guy because they still practiced segregation
@@thevrana 1. He went to his teacher and talked about his comparison of the founding of America to animal farm and authoritarianism. Think about it.
2. The American revolution was caused by a longing for self-governance coupled with unfair taxes imposed by a distant nation, the revolution in animal farm is caused by a longing for the end of the pain and oppression from the farmer. The end goal and outcomes were completely different, as then in the real world the Americans setup a government aimed at maintaining equality, while the latter turned full Stalin and began oppressing others. Sailor PlanetMars said they match almost perfectly, so when you tell me it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy you are ignoring the person you are trying to defend. The big brained geniusf Sailor PlanetMars also called inequality as being an American political value.
I read a book by Neil Postman, a cultural critic recently and he says, while we were worried about 1984 happening, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World happened instead right under out noses.
Amusing ourselves to death?
Modern americas infatuation with pleasure and drugs for one. Not much of a example of caste unless you consider celebrities born celebs. Uhm, weed is used similar to the way the drug was in the book. (I smoke too though so w/e) there are more in just not capable of bringing them up.
When I was in school, reading both books, I thought the exact same thing! I was so confused as to why everyone was more focused on 1984
It is very much a combination of both. Dopamine hits for breakfast and literal definition changes for dinner. The manipulation of language is truly astounding. And much like 1984 so many people just forget the meaning of words as soon as they are informed of what they really mean. Then the online dictionaries edit the definition overnight and most people don't even know what physical books are anymore.
This has become such a tired trope so quickly. I would hope that in 2021 we'd moved on from that naive reading of books and the oversimplification of the real world. But of course a nuanced critic doesn't garner headlines...
I'm a fan of Orgeo Gewell's work "1498" and his criticism of numbers, it's a good read and truly explains our modern society
Orwell George's _1948_ is what you meant
@@RideAcrossTheRiver no he meant what he said. how have u not read "1498" by Orgeo Gewell yet u communist
@@RideAcrossTheRiver - Gorwell Ogre's 8419.*
@@RideAcrossTheRiver 8941
9841: A Space Odyssey
Someone told Peterson he could fill a book about things he doesn't understand and he took that literally
😂😂
I was a kid in the 1980s, and my mates and I were pretty much resigned to the fact that we were going to die in a firestorm of mutually assured destruction. When the 1990s came along, it was hard to get used to the fact that I might actually have a future!!
We're you living in the US?
@@lighgblue2676 UK. But I imagine kids all over the world felt the same.
Haha. This is your fault then.
@@themodfather9382
It's their fault that as kids they happened to born at a certain time
@@razorednight I completely agree. The national media were continuously churning-out very graphic programmes about what happens in the event of a nuclear attack. We were led to believe that there would be a 2-minute warning, that we had ought to paint our windows white, put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye... As an 80s kid it was chilling as f. Much like these days really lol
"Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution. But I did mean it to have a wider application in so much that I meant that that kind of revolution (violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power-hungry people) can only lead to a change of masters." Orwell
And thus those fearful of change receive permission to discard revolutionaries as power hungry and the heavy boot as benevolent.
@@shelbypowell9919 and considering how few revolutions actually successfully created more liberty and prosperity for its belligerents, those conserving the old system may well be holding their civilization together from abject violence and chaos, where innocent people are killed or turned guilty.
@@wisdomsdoorstep don’t worry. I was like you once: scrambling to justify my place in Omelas. But one day, you’re going to wake up. You’ll look around, and realize this “civilization” doesn’t meet the burden of proof required to justify its existence. At that point you may either double down, worshiping Omelas in all its glory, or you may walk away. If you find your way to us, drop in. We have free kombucha and watermelon.
@@shelbypowell9919 it’s funny how nearly every person advocating for the overthrow of masters always has another group of other masters to join. You might want to think on that, i.e. if your masters let you.
@@shelbypowell9919 Nicely put.
If 1984 is so good why isn't there 1984 2, answer that Peterson.
"1985"
George Orwell died
@@andrewjones2132 that's news to me.
there is a 1984 2! Just look around!
More like 1984 ½.
JP saying Orwell is one of JP’s intellectual heros, yet JP stands for basically everything Orwell was against, is peak conservatism
This clown Peterson is part of the establishment and the same elites that Orwell was warning everyone about. It’s beyond transparent.
Gorge Orwell: *writes 1984*
Most world governments: “wow good idea, thanks for the advice!”
took some ideas word for word😂
I'm pretty sure they read Machiavelli's The Prince everyday before bed too. PS: It's not an evil ideological book but can be dangerous for the empty headed.
No, you're thinking of Brave New World. Now THAT'S the blueprint ;)
@@vitaminc2161 nah a lot of aristocrats and monarchists got mad at machiavelli because he essentially spelled out an exposed all the methods and strategies rulers have been using to grow and maintain power. its like "noooo don't tell them about the propaganda, boogeyman campaigns and political backstabbing i do on the daily nooo"
Don't forget the big corporations. Whilst people pay attention to governmental overreach, they are sneakily taking rights away, censoring, rewriting history and brainwashing masses.
"The great English journalistic tradition [of freedom of speech] keeps everyone including journalists honest."
This man has never read a British newspaper in his entire fucking life.
during victorian era press became 4 power cause they published very honest critique of society, the good investigation, after press becaming influencial the rich and governament coopted press as propaganda piece and instead of 4 power in state became a ridiculus machine
It’s nice how he appears to think that there are no Scottish, Welsh or Irish journalists worth speaking of either.
JP likes to boast about how he knows EVERYTHING , which shows that he hasn’t learned anything … wouldn’t listen to JP if I was paid
right lol, it's very possibly the worst news media in the world. at least the ones in North Korea need to be threatened.
@@GorgeDawes To a lot of foreigners and especially especially Americans, English=British and British=English. Quite silly really
Peterson: "Orwell was promoting Western Culture in his books!"
Orwell's Books: "I'm about to end this man's whole career"
What the fuck is going on?
@@DAVA653 most likely a scam
Please be more specific... Orwell was a profound supporter of Democratic Socialism, but also highly despised communism. In section 3 of 1984, Orwell writes:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The *German Nazis and the Russian Communists* came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of *persecution is persecution* . The object of *torture is torture* . The object of *power is power* . Now do you begin to understand me?’"
And there were communist attempts to assassinate Orwell. lithub.com/the-communist-plot-to-assassinate-george-orwell/. Hey to "Orwellian" experts out there! Orwell isn't his real name. His real name is *Eric Arthur Blair*. His fake name was created because he feared persecution and murder as mentioned on the link above.
Look, before anyone calls me a right-wing troll and that I secretly have a dick for Trump. No, I greatly believe democratic socialism can be beneficial right now in America. I believe we need to improve our unstable capitalist system with more humane policies like medicare all and free college. But we need to also understand that Orwell's message was anti-authoritarian, regardless of what the political system is. His bigger point was to show that human beings are easily corrupted and manipulated. That our human nature can precede beyond our political beliefs.
So, yes I feel like I need to have a daily habit of rolling my eyes 9 times a day when Liberals use Orwell as an example of why Trump is bad or when Conservatives use Orwell to why Biden is bad. Because in the end, American politics is a brainwashing cesspool of doublethink regardless if you're a Democrat or Republican. If Orwell was alive today, he would describe the entire political landscape and not exclusively on generic political terms like Democrat or Republican.
Thank you.
It's called capitalism. Step 1: you lie to them
Step 2: you cash in
Communism: when I have to vote for who gets to own and manage the farm, just so that I don't have to pay property taxes.
As a person from post-soviet country I didn't know it was a required reading in America, because in my country it wasn't.
I was positively surprised all this time, why wouldn't I because it's such a great book to understand totalitarian view of world such as German/English, of course Soviet and now other countries like China and America.
So I was really wondering why America was basically shooting itself in the leg with requiring 1984 in schools, until you mentioned how it was used.
I still feel so dumbfounded why I didn't realise earlier that you can just use it as anti-soviet book, how dumb I was for even thinking America didn't use it as propaganda as well.
@@h2o2630 Insanely ironic that those books are banned from your school library. You from Florida?
This video is really interesting to me, because I never saw it as an "anti-communist" or and "anti-capitalist" book, I saw it as completely "anti-totalitarian", and hence opposing both far-right and far-left. I didn't even know the american right liked this book, as I'd always associated it with opposing everything they tend to stand for. Thank you for the thought provoking video, as someone who isn't from a country directly involved in the cold war and too young to have lived through anyways, I learned a lot!
You don't know because you don't understand politics. Like, at all. The far right are totalitarian, not "the right". As a centrist, leaning left, the right are probably the least totalitarian outside of the most extreme of liberals.
Politics is more complicated than that and George Orwell's book essentially just criticizes the extreme that can effect either political 'side'. It questions a whole load of things that allow anyone, with any political stance, to use an extract in defence of their own political views.
The right stands for regression to older tradition, the left stands for progression, which more and more looks like progression, but progression towards a doom we haven’t seen.
What it is about is anti collectivism.
@@pagatryx5451 I dunno, the left has historically been less totalitarian, hasn't it? Stonewall riots, race equality, gender equality movements and all that tended to cause riots, the whole point of progressivism is to change existing systems, which usually goes against existing systems of government and makes the individual's voice heard, the opposite of totalitarianism. The right tends to be less accepting of other perspectives existing in tandem with their own, passing laws to prohibit certain expression, to my knowledge.
@@Mich-jk2ze Could be, but we've seen the past already and it wasn't very good. Future could be terrible, or it could be great, but we haven't seen it yet so we might as well find out rather than settle for a past which wasn't good.
Is nobody going to talk about how at 16:51 when Nicholas mentions "Orwell and his wife" a photo of Orwell and a goat gets shown?
😂😂😂
This made my day. Hahaha
Thank you mrs. Nekomimi.
@aadhi gei Are you talking about me?
@aadhi gei Lmao, idk what part of my pfp says that I am apparently an ancap, but I am an ancom (specifically anfem).
I always liked the UK being called Airstrip1, it seemed to encompass it's demise as a global super power while simultaneously putting it into the category of 'Mericas little bitch'. Nothing's changed there.
Haha, definitely. In fact, more than anything else, the dividing up of the globe into spheres of influence was the key influence on the writing of the book. And probably the most prophetic.
Assuming what little we know is true. For all we know airstrip 1 is the only place in the world like this. It could be similar to real life North Korea, just even more extreme and cut off.
that's not quite what was meant I think, the point was more that the traditional notion of what "britain" or "england" was had been destroyed, i.e the party had destroyed the old notions of what it meant to be english and replacing it with worship of the party and its doctrine. Thus there is no more england, it's airstrip one, and there are no more englishmen, just members of the party
What Peterson does not understand could fill a stadium.
Couldn't any single person's lack of understanding fill a stadium?
@@ward6238Peterson is blissfully unaware of what he does not know; the rest of us aren't blathering and weeping all day long in front of cameras.
Well he's obviously a religious believer, for a start; means that nothing he has to say should be taken TOO seriously!
@@donaldgallacher6998obviously you could fill 2 stadiums
@@eliasfuhrmler2564it's not just that he is blissfully unaware but that he doesn't feel like he has to understand anything to make a authoritative statement about it.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a right winger missing the point of 1984, forever"
There not missing the point, they're encouraging it.
@@afg45? How exactly? In detail please.
@@Cpruett clearly he means they're advocating for the creation of a 1984-esque society. Right wingers love their forever wars, after all
IMHO, if you want a vision of future capitalism, look into Japan, where many people are not even treated as human by their own parents; because there's such a heavy societal push to be a good worker.. And millions of people die alone, and uncared for, because they don't wish to be a bother to those around them.
Sure much of that can be attributed to Japanese culture, but that's still exactly where I see America, and sometime later, Canada, heading towards. We already have a heavy societal push towards vanity, and the welfare class is widely looked down upon, and directly insulted. Much of the current propaganda is pushing towards further separation, and discontent within the individual members, and groups within our society.
@@afg45 The last non-televised protests I have seen have been organized by “right wingers” and anarchists groups. Just saying…
i have no idea why this was recommended to me but this was neat.
I’m so glad you liked it!
@@Tom_Nicholas I’m gonna sub for more 🥰
Big Brother, uh, _Google_ knows that you have socialism hidden in your heart.
Because Tom's a neat guy who talks about neat issues
Stick around. 😉
If I was Aldous Huxley I'd be so pissed off that nobody talks about how eerily similar Brave New World is to reality
I mean, we just need to enact Eugenics as our class system, elect a few Supreme controllers and eliminate every world government and where bout there. TBH, Orwell's vision of a dystopia is far closer to what we are seeing today with concepts like 2+2=5 and newspeak. Aldous was close though, we are pampered too much to really care anymore, but that's about where it ends.
@@Explicitghost Elements from both and probably others are present.
@@Explicitghost honestly it’s a lot closer, nearly 1:1, to the Dune series. No I will not elaborate.
@@tubulartom666 Nah, it's closer to Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. No I will not elaborate.
Brave New World is not similar at all. Stop talking bullshit.
Imagine never reading Orwells book and hearing it explained to you by a drugged out psychologist.
*Former psychologist
"The statue consists of a large imitation of orwell".
Couldn't they have just got one of the real Orwell?
Yeah let's pay his grandkid to stand motionless in place 24/7 :D
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Dinnyeify That sounds like the kind of job that a neo lib politician would make up.
@@kylelundgren5133 lol
I like what he said about how imperialism "oppresses the colonized and spiritually corrupts the colonizer". How are we to understand this spiritual corruption? Could it be the lies and excuses colonizers make to uphold the system distort the culture, and even our understanding of reality?
Brexit is a sign of that spiritual corruption. The Brexit campaign deliberately played on imperial nostalgia. The ruling party has constructed a sainthood around Churchill, a defender of empire and colonialism, to the point you can’t point out his flaws without being attacked and the government passing a draconian law to protect statues after a Churchill one had graffiti on it and one to a slave trader was toppled.
@@golDroger88 if you're gonna be racist do it right. Mixing is not a corruption of the soul but of the body and mind.
@@noyes8882 I don't believe in racism, outiside of violence. Preserving ethnicities is in everyone's interest, it cannot be discriminatory, if anything those who favour mixing imply that the other identity is not worthy of being preserved, which is discriminatory and racist, for those who believe in it.
@@golDroger88 you do realize that people having mixed babies doesn't mean that every single person is having mixed babies, right?
@@noyes8882 No one should have mixed babies.
I don't think you realize at what degree of risk European identity is. There are almost no more European kids in European schools.
What I got from 1984 was a lesson about Power, and how groups of humans will always resort to the most extreme means possible to retain their superiority over others. O'Briens villain speech to Winston while electrocuting him almost electrocuted me with how hair raising it was.
The lesson you should've learnt from Animal Farm is that individuals will game the system to take power, and will lie unless there are systems of accountability and openness to expose their lies.
"groups of humans will always resort to the most extreme means possible to retain their superiority over others"
@@mark4aspwhat world do you live on?
I took from Animal farm that it's very important to stay politically engaged. That you can't just vote the right person in and then trust that they will do the right thing. Also that if a politician makes claims that another did something you should always double check that.
So JP is essentially reading between the lines and then ignores the lines.
jp writes orwell fanfic
Excellent video, but I think your interpretation of 1984 is lacking a little in the area of one of it's most important themes, that of language. Orwell was extremely concerned with how western propaganda was deliberately trying to remake both history and the very meaning of words, so that words which was negatively loaded no longer were. And so everything becomes the opposite of what it originally meant. I always understood that INGSOC is the English socialist party, and the two things that it isn't, is socialist and English. That was the whole point of the new-speak isn't it?
Great point. Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language should be mandatory reading.
Good catch. I somehow never even noticed that. I wonder if Orwell named it IngSoc taking inspiration also from Hitlers Socialist party, since they clearly were not socialist either.
Yes, I agree! The redefinition of words prompted by postmodern ideology is truly heinous.
@@DonMo999 all words have changed definitions and meaning naturally over time. A living language is a tool of those whom speak it. A book or author of a dictionary will never be able to perfectly define words or cement their meaning forever.
An example of Orwell’s newspeak would be how the right lies and propagandises through their media outlets like Fox. Trump is a great example of someone who would say something then tell everyone he meant the opposite of what he said or he never said it at all and his loyal followers would then repeat those lies ad naseum until it became the new truth. Understanding the proper definition of gender is not new speak, anyone who claims it is is stupid or acting in bad faith. New speak is not the evolution of language or academic understanding of language, it’s being told what you’ve heard with your own ears is never happened as a form of domination and it’s a popular tool of fascism and the far right.
Homage to Catalonia should be a mandatory reading after Animal Farm and 1984.
Oh definitely, as Tom said, it was the event that leads to Orwell developing the worldview that he held for the rest of his life.
Would definitely help clear up whatever notion the cherry pickers got after going through whatever content their echo chambers generated.
Orwell was a based fellow Anarchist Comrade.
@@renlevy411 "A prototypical red-basher who pretended to be on the left was Goerge Orwell. In the middle of WWII, while the soviet union was fighting for its life against Na.i invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that 'a willingness to crticise Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty', safely ensconsed within a virulently anticommunist society. Orwell, with Orwellian double-think, characterised the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance.
Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against *imaginary* Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes"
Michel Parenti, in his book, Blackshirts and Reds, on the topic of Left Anticommunism.
Clink clank here comes the reason we can't have nice things...
@@comradecam Are you going to actually take the opportunity to listen to someone from the global south? or are you going to whistle to your white middle-class buddies to come laugh at this "stupid tankie"?
We live in a weird mix of 1984 and Brave new world. In some places, the boot is on your neck, and in others, you are just sedated with distractions, the silliest distractions possible. And in some places you have a mix of both, strangely being run at the same time.
Yes this is the nuance that nobody gets, many people had pieces of the truth like a puzzle.
Yeah, I’m kind of people tired of calling 1984 the future. It is much closer to Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World where people accept tyranny not through punishment, coercion, or pain, but through pleasure, distractions, and the ever belief that words are harmful. Which is why censorship will not come from the government but from the people(cancel culture) and corporations(Twitter/Facebook) and eventually the government.
Tom Nicholas is a fucking charlatan throughout the entire video misconstruing points about both Peterson and Orwell. He creates straw men on the right that only exist so he can pretend to “own the conservatives”.
@@kylevernon there are no strawmen in this video. It is just that you are intellectually incapable of understanding nuance and subtext beyond what you feel serves your ideology. A typical Conservative attitude.
@@xmlthegreat The fact that you feel compelled to use the second biggest fallacy in the book to answer a comment that points out the video is full of them is just really funny
@@sizalx5226 when my opponent just straight up lies (you notice there is no actual example of a straw man in his comment, just a blanket statement) then I have no qualms dismissing them with their own stupid logic. They don't want to play by the rules, so I'm not going to either. You can laugh it up, but when Conservatives speak their words no longer contain meaning or weight.
As a wise man once said "this is like George Orwell's book uh 1984"
Great video! You really researched his life thoroughly. I have just one question... What was it like co-starring with Elijah Woods in Lord of the Rings?
I love this comment.
He's like Tom Scott. He looks 20 and 40 simultaneously.
After this video drops be prepared for the giant downvote brigade that happens every time someone dares question Peterson. Same thing happened to Hakim.
@Faith Reader Could be changed (I hope it is) but what I expect to see is a largely positive like/dislike ratio early on, since the initial views will be subscribers and fans. However with the name "Jordan Peterson" in the title what is going to happen is this video will get recommended or show up in a any Jordan Peterson searches or auto play algorithms. This then brings in all the Jordan Peterson fans looking for Jordan Peterson TH-cam Videos. That's when the big temper tantrum starts and you end up with a massive amount of dislikes and trolling in the comments section as time goes on. I expect to see it weeks / months later.
@@-Zevin- The video Faith Reader mentioned is two weeks old, and JP fans definitely found it as it has 5.1k downvotes, but they can't match the 42k upvotes. ContraPoints made her massively triggering JP video almost three years ago (that scene in the bathtub is etched into my memories...), gathered 11k downvotes since then, but that's dwarfed by the 126k likes.
Either way, people who can't think judge. Most comments offer nothing of value to the discussion of the topic.
To be honest, the thing you describe of having loads of likes/nice comments when a video first releases and then getting a bit more grief later on happens with most topics (particularly when critiquing someone with, let’s say, “enthusiastic” fans.
@@Tom_Nicholas Good point. I hope people understand that context at least. There is always a silver lining too, and that is many Peterson fans will inevitably watch this video and appreciate a new perspective, even if they are not publicly vocal admitting so.
A channel I follow that has very "left" leaning political views recently got raided during a live stream by a right libertarian channel. Huge dislike to like ratio, lots of trolling in comments and live chat etc. However the interesting part is, this politically left channel also gained a few hundred new subscribers that very same day.
Idk who you are or why you’re spitting fire but I’m here for it
Haha, hope you liked it!
😂😂😂
@@Tom_Nicholas it was different in a good way, overall a really solid video
@@Tom_Nicholas Straw man people's position much? This might be the most feeble attempt to hit Peterson I've seen to date. Anyone who understands Peterson and his work, knows you're flailing wildly here. Nothing more than a banal serving of politically polarized grandstanding.
@@kenhiett5266 triggered, you’re not special for liking pink floyd and you’re not smart for using those big words.
I like how you can always interpret your political ideology into 1984
That's what happens when people go over any kind of media without properly understanding it. A pretty good example is Starship Troopers, it's a satire of a futuristic fascist state where the government uses fearmongering to control it's citizens, there's a lot of imagery that is based on nazi simbols, uniforms, etc to make it more obvious, but you play it to anyone not being critical of these things, and the satire goes over their head and it turns into a right wing propaganda story of sorts.
If you have a story where you don't clearly establish which side is good and which side is bad, a lot of people may not pick up on it, and if you do establish it, right wingers will say that the movie is propagandizing people into left wing/communist stuff because they can't agree to the bad side is doing even though their own politics would support it. Also it's kinda funny how right wingers will also try to co-opt anything they think is good and use it to disparage the opposition, like they saying that they are the true patriots and centrists and leftists are antiamerican. Which could actually be true, but not for the reason right wingers think, which makes it all even funnier.
I don’t quite get what you’re getting at, could you elaborate? This comes from a place of respect.
@Roblovjc I believe what he means is that 1984 is frequently used to defend seemingly opposing viewpoints, and the intent of the text is lost. If you're a communist, 1984 is a defense of communism, if you're a fascist, it's a defense of fascism, etc.
@@salmonofknowledge3229 okay, thank you for elaborating on his point, that makes more sense now, appreciate it :)
Definitely would like to see a vid on the emergence of the idea of 'The West' !
Oh cool, I really want to make one so I’m glad to see there’s some demand for it!
@@Tom_Nicholas I second the request.
A small bit which I think would be worth to include: a few centuries back (well before Orientalism), at the time of the Great Northern War, Russia wasn't part of "the East', but 'the North'.
Ohh, and you could call it "Undermining 'The West'" for clickbait purposes.
@@Tom_Nicholas Have you heard of historian/author Tom Holland? He argues that Christianity is what still defines our culture in "the West" even if it's not explicitly Christian anymore. You might find him interesting.
Whenever someone mentions "Western culture" I think of the anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi.
Interviewer: "What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."
Lol. Nice one. Here in the States I'm always bemused by how, when warned of the Lurking Danger of Communism, the knee-jerk response is to double down on the conditions that foster it. It's like seeing someone responding to poison ivy with fertilizer and a watering can.
They're so afraid of totalitarianism that they want a totalitarian government to stop it.
My father, on the other side of the pond, had this insane fear of Communists as well.
So did my peers at Catholic school, I remember their telling me the embargo on Cuba was fine because “they were Communists”.
This gave me a good laugh
I did not watch the entire video yet, but, from the description, I think Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing consent" is worth mentioning here since he precisely shows, why journalists do not really say what they want to say in Western media either.
Might I also recommend some more non-fiction works:
*-"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle*
*-"Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser*
Both of these books deal with propaganda in relation to the meat and dairy industries and business that don't care about the public, workers, animals, and environment they exploit.
*"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein*
This is how 'free market' government exploits disasters to gain traction. Basically a 'do it all at once while no one is paying attention. Shh!'
*"The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Society Stronger" by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkonson*
Pretty much what the title says.
*-"The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together" by Heather McGhee*
*-"Black Genius: African American Solutions to African American Problems" a collection of essays*
The top book is the most recent but the bottom book is still very relevant and inspiring.
*"Alternatives to Privatizing Public Education and Curriculum by Daniel Ness and Stephen J. Farenga*
This is really scary. The Shock Doctrine introduces the topic of charter schools, but this book goes much further into depth about the school systems in general (in America).
@@EightyFourThousands84000s Oh my, thanks for the references! You have to read Illich and Castoriadis!!!! You will love their work.
@@noellemorel7280 I'll check them out!
@@EightyFourThousands84000s Ivan Illich* ( sorry, I was not precise enough). Try Andre Gorz as well :)
@@noellemorel7280 Noted. Thanks for the clarification :D
It is so disheartening how JP has charmed so many with the glamour of his esoteric academic vocabulary and use of misinterpreting classics like 1984 to bolster his arguments.
Damn I really hope my dear Ms. Algorithm gets a chance to see this, because they're really missing out
Does just liking your post help with that or do I need to post something in the comments thread?
Cosign
George Orwell predicted that there would be a year between 1983 and 1985 ... called: 1984!
Orwell was a true visionary.
Holy moly
There can also be more than one 1984 as in the past they restarted the calendar and in could happen again.
@@hydrolito
1984 2: judgement day
Russian propaganda confirmed.
@@toohightohigh3640
Exactly! We know the Russians used a different calendar until recently! October revolution in November? Gotcha!
I appreciated hearing about Orwell's differing opinions throughout his life and his contradictions
it's called critical thinking.
@@archmad also aging with grace and wisdom
Orwell has been misinterpreted and misunderstood (and subsequently Co opted) by many. As controversial as it sounds, I believe the same regarding Ayn Rand.
Yes he learned.
@@themadmattster9647 You mentioned Ayn Rand. Yep. She also changed her views later in life.
Very few understand Orwell. The cameras were not main feature of Big Brother's world. The important issue was (and still is) a complex society's pressure to conform, ostracizing any non-conformists. The book focused on attitudes of the British Middle Class, and specifically points out that the 'Proles' were not on camera. If you missed that point, read the book again.
It always baffled me to see conservatives use 1984 to push their ideas when the book literally contains an entire chapter explaining Marx's historical materialism. I don't know if it's because americans are less familiar with marxist theories than europeans, and thus recoganzise them less, but the socialist inspirations of Orwell seems pretty obvious to me when you read the actual book.
Anyway, great video, and much love from a country that isn't real.
The narrative of 1984 is against tyranny, embodied by IngSoc in the novel. If I recall correctly, it's in the part when Winston and Julia read Goldstein's book that historical materialism and it's relation to the revolution are explained, and even exalted. Seeing that historical materialism is a pivotal element of ingSoc, and seeing that Orwell denounces IngSoc as a tyranny, it's actually natural to see the novel as a vindication of the inherently flawed nature of ideologies founded on historical materialism. Of course, if one knows Orwell then also knows that he was criticising stalinism as a treason to socialism while vindicating a democratically planned society, but stating that as a proof of illogical conservatism is contingent on historical materialism being true, and therefore, democratic socialism being viable, which is a rather questionable assumption given the iron laws of olygarchies and almost 70 years of institutional economics theory development
@@alexiscolladosolis4257 This is indeed the chapter I was refering too. Of course, this passage is subject to many different interpretations. In my opinion, others works of Orwell, notoriously the animal farm, imply a particular interest for the treason of marxist ideals. As a consequence, I read this passage more as a sort of reference to a "pure" socialism rather than a critical analysis of historical materialism. These early concepts would have since be perverted and forgotten by the wider public, historical materialism being only a remnant of this (we can also notice that throughout the book, there is no explicit socialist rethoric from angsoc, at the contrary, angsoc is still a class society with a "proletariat", implying that the ideological base of the regime has been reduced only to the party's name). This idea of perversion of an original socialist utopia also echoes Orwell own experience in Spain.
I'm obviously not an expert on the matter, and if we suppose that the author is dead, there is no reason to say that my reading is more valid than yours.
In the end, even if we consider this part may be as you suggest a critical view on historical materialism, the book is still marked with a socialist tone and perspective. And of course, It doesn't mean conservative people can't find there own interpretations. I just remarked that the commentaries offered by conservatives like Peterson often lack these elements of context, wich, even if we don't fully agree with the authors opinion, are kinda necessary to make a constructive anlysis. ( moreover, I'm pretty sure Peterson, a cultivated man, is fully aware of Orwell's view and deliberately doesn't mention it)
(sorry, this was way to long and is probably full of grammar mistakes, gotta remember these english lessons)
@Black Box Painting You're not wrong, however, one of the most common trait among the many form of conservatisms is the de facto assimilation of socialism and authoritarianism into one unique entity. Being an old heritage of the cold war, this equivalence is still today one of the big antisocialist argument from right wing people.
@@mrshindler2537 don't worry, I'm not a native english speaker myself and it's truly pleasant to have this kind of discussion with someone of the opposite view. Indeed, the theme around most of Orwell's literary work is that of the "betrayed revolution", something that makes the fullest of sense when taking into account his personal views and the context in which he lived.
I personally don't take that chapter as a critique of historical materialism; on the contrary, Orwell's stance as a socialist seems evident through the input of Goldstein's theory and criticism of the party's course. However, what I would contend, like conservatives as Peterson would, is that such a position as those of Orwell is contentious at the very least. Taking into account that societies tend to be hierarchycal by nature, the notion of a democratically arranged socialist society and the veracity of historical materialism seem pretty wishfull. Furthermore, such a political project could easily become a double-edged sword if the practical difficulties of implementing it degenerate into a tyranny, which is what happens in the book with ingsoc and during civil war Catalonya, which is Orwell's main source of inspiration
@Black Box Painting "Most American conservatives are anti-authoritarian." Uh, this is more false than true. I think you mean they're anti-regulation of the market, which is something very different.
I always found Brave New World to be far more terrifying than 1984.
Both are horrible, although in a brave new world you can choose to be a savage instead of forced to be a slave as in 1984
@@koekepeertje5024 Fahrenheit 451 is also a great book
@@LukeTheTrader I'd also add "We" by Yevgeni Zamyatin to the list
the final paragraph of john the savage is horrifying
@@stickymeat88 can you tell me it?
Feeding the algorithm in hopes that this video find its way to more people.
Thank you Alex, I appreciate you efforts!
Making videos on Peterson and Musk is a good way to get viewers
FACTS
I cant think of anything more than, equal to, or less than Orwellian
Like a Snickers commercial, the algorithm must FEAST!
Ironically, a strong case could be made that 1984 is a very postmodern text, given its emphasis on the power dynamics of things like language itself.
I read 1984 twice when I was 15. I talked to a right winger once about it and he was really confused that the book didn't say anything about forcing people to use their preferred pronouns lol.
Compelled speech and hate-speech that involve the forceful obedience regarding "unacceptable sayings" towards x & y & z are orweillein by definition. An orweillein State, just as it would force a populace to adopt the belief that 2+2=5, would force their populace to reject inherent biological binaries that they may hold to be true.
Man and Woman do not exist -- and to use them would be offensive to those who do not identify as such. Man is a symbol and or label that embodies patriarchy which causes trauma to marginalized groups. It must not be uttered.
Man is forbidden to be used, and any label that uses its prefix. It is Womxn.
Yeah and did the teacher and the whole class stand up and start clapping for you too?
@@1VETaLEK2 I clapped
@@1VETaLEK2 are you really gonna sit here and pretend that Conservatives don't equate political correctness or preferred pronouns with the party's newspeak in 1984? Because they absolutely do that.
@@1VETaLEK2 I can confirm they clapped I was the book
Jordan Peterson actually does totally acknowledge Orwell's socialist leanings. One of the most famous pieces of video content of him even makes this totally explicit: the zizek/peterson debate.
I don't think he actually does feel that orwell celebrates the west, just that he criticizes radical change for its proclivity for corruption, which Peterson does celebrate.
Was Zizek debate the only time JP made a refernece to Orwell? Because if not and this declaration isn't consistent with other references then it's an empty declaration, which would give same energy as "I'm not racist, but..."
@@Mish844 dude, he said "most famous".
@@williamturner6192 point being?
@@Mish844 Your comment is entirely insubstantial: if (some random speculative conjecture) and (some other random speculative conjecture) then (vague and insubstantial remark with allusion to racism).
Try again when you have a specific criticism of Peterson that you have actually bothered to research and can substantiate with references.
@@omp199 Funnily enough your comment was the perfect example of the thing you're describing. This is some meta humor, I'll admit.
If you can't be bothered to respond then the fault is yours, not mine. Start taking responsibility for your incompetence.
There is nothing vague or conjecturish about Peterson not lving up to an empty declaration like a person saying "I'm not racist but". And since I don't think it's possible to make it easier to understand, well, it say a lot about you.
It drove me crazy having to read there books for class and having to listen what the teacher was telling everyone these books were about and how they were simply just "communism bad" when the book was much more complex and mostly critiqued dictatorships and corruption more than anything else. A lot of people have a hard time separating dictatorships from communism because of the decades of propaganda that claim they are the same thing when communism as a concept diametrically opposes dictatorships. I've literally had teachers that read the definition out loud in class "a stateless, moneyless, and classless society" and then claimed it can't work because it always ends up being a STATE controlled economy run by dictators 🤦♂️
At that point I stopped listening to anything that teacher said. You can't completely misunderstand and ignore basic language and actually be equipped to teach people about those things.
@Stone Blue Thats the socialist phase of communism
Such a society is not a society at all. Without state to suppress it, classes will arise. Trade will be resimplified into cash as a placeholder, and the state will be established in order to protect individual and collective desires. You cannot have equal distribution of resources without either a material incentive to do so, or a state to enforce said distribution. We tried a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, and it didn't last, giving way to our current world because state and money are essential to large scale human society, and class is inevitable, whether it be through money, or state.
@@jjdelft3216 it's generally not even the socialist stage but the state capatilist stage
But they’re not really wrong. It’s like giving the definition of celibacy and the practical reality that happens whenever is tried. It can’t naturally and successfully happen unless humans are biologically changed.
A bit of insight about Jordan Peterson's "decline of Western Civilization" - if you substitute patriarchy for Western Civilization it becomes much more clear what he is actually talking about. Most of his commentary regarding "tradition" is about retaining those power structures and nothing more, no matter how he tries to pretend that it is based on a higher intellectual analysis of society and its purpose.
I never read Orwell until I was in my mid 30s, but my mode of thinking was already perfectly molded to him. I never had a father growing up, Orwell would have been perfect. I have so much love for the man. Wish I had met him.
I think you just sold a brother some slacks.
@@markofsaltburn You're very much welcome.
Him going to fight against Franco and fascism in support of socialism is incredible. So many of us including myself vocally support our ideals, but push comes to shove we won't go to fight in another countries war to fight for those ideals.
The far right often quote him thinking he would have supported their cause. Not realising he literally went to Spain to fight the far right and against their awful beliefs.
@@beardedchimp Above and beyond the call of Duty, so much to admire about the man.
Still not as bad as Hillary Clinton saying that the message of 1984 was "listen to authority figures."
I doubt anyone watching this video supports Hillary but also wow that is a dumb thing to say.
Please tell me that is not actually true, although it does sound like something she would say
I mean, she didn't say that, but it would have been wild if she did.
@@videogamenostalgia I just read the actual quote, and while she didn't say that the message was to "listen to authority figures" she still seems to have misunderstood the message, like most capitalists that read it.
@@videogamenostalgia Joe Biden said in his first congress adress "*mumbling* we the people... *cpu failure* are the government... *mumbling*" that is even worse lol
I like how this bloke literally spends the entire video breaking down the interpretations of “iTs LiKe OuR WoRlD” yet the comments are still filled with it.
If your looking at 1984 with a political view then your reading it wrong. The book, unlike animal farm, does not take sides, it simply portrays the true extent of a dictatorship. The party is obviously a satire of Stalin’s Russia, but he never points your hand and goes “haha and here’s the Dictator and his actions” like in animal farm, instead he weaves a complicated tapestry of depression and mental obliteration to non politically portray and criticise one of the most political things known to man, authoritarian ideals.
What does that have to do with jordan peterson tho?
@@caralho5237 this channel seems to be targeted at leftist, who hate Jordan Peterson for calling out Bill C-16 in Canada years ago. The audience you appeal to taints your work with bias.
@@JamecBond Yea true
@@JamecBond just like petersons audience is the right wing !
@@sammyangel98 Petersons audience is most disaffected young men, who the left hates with a burning passion, so yes they are "right wing" by default
Sensational content. Delighted the algorithm led me here. Love the delivery and style, being near metronomic in its timed pacing. So refreshing to come across detailed academic content with a splash of personality per the intro! Keep it up mate 👏👍
Orwell’s unpublished introduction to Animal Farm is explicitly critical of censorship in England where “unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.” Here, Orwell confronts the politics and power of culture. Orwell continues: “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.”
For more commentary on Orwell’s unpublished intro to AF, see Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone’s ‘The Consequences of Capitalism’
It turns out I didn't understand George Orwell very well either. Thanks for this video!
Yes Orwell was purposely misrepresented by the west. The cartoon version of Animal Farm is total propaganda funded by the CIA.
I remember that I had to write an essay about a novel of my choice and how hierarchy plays a role in it, specifically the acceptance or rejection of that hierarchy. I chose 1984 as an example of a warning against an hierarchy-not a specific ideology, just any system in general, all systems with enough power, being able to snake and slither their way into complete, unabiding control, to being able to make someone thing 2 plus 2 equals 5, to turn something as bright and enriching as hope and love into hopeless acts. The fact that 1984 shows us the power of this hierarchy, being able to dash and destroy and convert the protagonist from his rebellious ways of just wanting to feel human like us into abiding to every word the system says. 1984 isn't a story or a bash against Stalinism-it's a bash against every system of power wanting more power, and a prediction of our future of we let them control us too much, regardless of -isms or ideology.
AP lit 2022?
You say it is not about left or right. I suppose you make this argument because of Hitler, but he was not copying any political norm because he was the one who invented totalitarianism. All the others that followed were all left wing. They fell in love with totalitarianism, it was the road to Utopia and they are still trying to sell it to us. Sadly they are making inroads due to missive investments from an extremely wealthy few.
@@bobbyfr911 yep
Well argued. I know you're probably older now, but just think about the 1984 terms "wrongspeak" and "wrongthink". And what do you see in modern society? To think that a Trans-Woman is still a biological male is now "hate speech". Any hierarchy, duly elected & appointed by merit, can be chosen by the people to leave all their liberties intact & in fact to downsize government, if this hierarchy were to run on such a platform. Mitch from Australia.
@@mitchmccarron8337 you put up an interesting thought to experiment on. One could argue "wrongthink" and "wrongspeak" are similar to the concepts of "mens rea" and "actus reus," or being of "guilty mind" and "guilty act," respectively. What I think turns socially and politically unorthodox opinions into the categories of thoughtcrime is the active enforcement of the hierarchy in charge to determine that any sort of association with these undesirable stances are violations of the law, and enforcing all forms of surveillance and mindboggery to ensure no one has those thoughts, and even shun those who even considered those thoughts.
As an American, the best example I can give was the Red Scare of the 20th century, where an entire culture in America was created with a "Better dead than Red" attitude. Communists were profiled as being inherently evil and anti-American, looked shady and subversive, and could have even been your neighbor. Any mentions, indications, or perceptions of your actions being in support of anything remotely socialist was deemed a possible threat to the American way, and it really peaked under the McCarthyism boom, and during the Vietnam War. McCarthyism became a 20th century witch hunt, complete with falsified accounts, fake documents, unfounded assumptions, and various other tactics to try and "expose" certain people as secret Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists. During Vietnam, two primary ways of thinking were created in how one thought of the government: "love it or leave it," and protests. On one side, anyone who dared dislike or disagree with the government was considered a revolutionary, someone worthy of being locked up into a nut house to be looked at, even if they had valid reasons to dislike the government. On the other, a militant form of protests were spurring that aimed to destroy government property and make themselves seen rather than heard, to force you to acknowledge them not for the merit of their cause, but for how large of a spectacle they made. Neither side was in the right.
Continue that into today, and more and more surveillance methods are being used. Any usage of the word "bomb" on a phone call is immediately flagged and looked at, an indicator of some of the early developments of turning something into a thoughtcrime: paranoia of constantly being watched and heard. Think about it: the demographically largest democratic country has routinely flirted the edge of 1984 styles of government during one of the darkest times in the most tumultuous century of humanity.
I can't say much about today that I feel like would get some people biting at my neck, but all I'll say is that there is a difference between public and government perception of what's legal and what's punishable right now. As far as some people are concerned, any form of trivialities towards their group is considered a direct attack on their people, but it also varies from person to person. However, the government will let you say anything you want in a public space as long as it's not an active threat against someone's life, I believe. In all honesty, the American government will let you actively preach the removal of all minorities in America whilst carrying a loaded firearm, burning the American flag and marching around town, as long as you don't actively and physically harm someone. The moment we delve into true thoughtcrime, in my opinion, is when the government itself begins to actively force people to consider anything the government doesn't agree with as the enemy of everything, the true terror that wants to destroy you all, while also keeping the enemy extremely vague, and their ideas isolated from the people to avoid any possibility of diverging thoughts-a monopoly on your mind and its choices.
"This is one of the most terrifying books I have encountered"
- Jordan Peterson reading Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson
It was really interesting to learn about Orwell's experiences and how it influenced his writing. Thanks!
I hope you are joking. Short, edited youtube video is one of the last places you should take information on.
@@motgbg Where should the first be?
@@kellik3554 Good question, maybe there is the answer. Thank you.
This video is not the right place to learn about orwell's experiences. And it is a terribly flawed critique of peterson.
@@gershommaes902 care to explain that notion?
Aldous Huxley fans probably got elevated blood pressure with this intro.
Nailed it 😂
i just like George Orwell because i read his books at an age of which i didn’t understand their depths so now i just coffee shop talk about Orwell.
Nice pfp
@@ManiacMayhem7256 thanks it was made by skyguy on twitter check em out when you can 👍🏻
The irony of saying journalists in the UK have the freedom to say whatever they like in a country where someone was sued for saying something mildly insulting about JK Rowling is deeply ridiculous
Can we stop saying that "calling someone a Nazi" is only "mildly insulting"?
@@adambaker4590Seems fair if she wrote Harry Potter to be honest.
@@adambaker4590 I mean, it's very insulting, but it also seems like an opinion, which should typically be protected speech, especially since the Nazis didn't even call themselves Nazis either, it was a derogatory term.
@StormSought It's not only very insulting but it's defamatory, which is why the guy was sued to begin with (since the UK doesnt have a First Amendment or free speech..). People may try to say "it's just my opinion" but that's just a weak excuse for what people really believe. If a person genuinely thinks JK Rowling is a nazi, I'd be willing to bet money that same person also wishes death or harm on her. Why? "Because Nazi's deserve it." People use that term as a way to dehumanize others, which makes it real easy to treat them like shit.
All I'm saying is the Nazi's were responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, so it's a bit wild to be calling the author of Harry fuckin Potter a nazi just because they believe that a biological male is a man and a biological female is a woman..
It's always "the most accepting and tolerant among us" that wish the cruelest fates upon those they disagree with.
@@adambaker4590 I mean, I don't think it's ridiculous to call someone a nazi when they hang out with nazis, which she does. that's an observation. you just agree with her. that doesn't make her correct or not a bigot, or indeed, not a nazi.
A fan from Brazil here. Great video, Tom. We're currently living under a right-wing government here, so Orwell is kind of an "official" reference amongst the sympathizers of the president. I'd love to see your take on Hannah Arendt's work as well. Thanks.
My thoughts go out to Brazil 🙏🏼
Salve!
Reality really is stranger than fiction. A book coming up with the idea of "doublethink", being critical of it, and in the end being used for doublethink purposes.
Bom saber que tem mais brasileiros frequentando esse canal
One more brazillian here. And one more of us who is amazed at how Orwell was accurate in describing how an authoritarian regime (in our case, a fascist one) is able to brainwash people into following it.
"the proposition that underlies Western culture is that there's a transcendent morality […] predicated on the idea of God"
Well, by that definition, the Taliban and IS could be considered part of 'Western culture'. I don't think that JP would agree with me, though.
You're making an invalid connection. Western culture and the Taliban can be based on the same proposition while still having different implementations. Muslim culture after all has the same proposition, yet in practice it has developed differently to western culture.
Theyre better than western culture in ways
@@benharris7358 because western cultural abandoned the idea of transcendent moral truth, otherwise they would have developed the same, we don’t base our laws on religion, Hindus knew this idea was best first, however many people in the west have been tricked to abandon the pursuit of an objective moral standard in all aspects of life simply because it shouldn’t be applied to laws because it can’t ever be fully solidified as the TRUTH. Which is why the law only deals in what we can PROVE. Not what is believed even by the majority. Because beliefs are subjects to change. But the evidence of any crime once committed will stay the evidence of that crime.
@@benharris7358 It has developed?
@@ItReallyIsiPOD Cultures peak and decline. They appear and disappear. What may be decried as the pinnacle of society now, may be glorified or thought abhorrent by people 200 years in either direction. It comes down to the dice roll that is when and where you were born.
Love George Orwell and his complicated history. Both in his life and how we view him today.
I had to pause for laughter at “great English journalistic tradition” 😂
I actually had a teacher who had us read 1984 and animal farm in class and analyzed them in an anti-socialist perspective, which at the time, I wholeheartedly believed. I liked these books so much I re-read them over the summer, and without him to skew the raw words to fit his narrow perspective, I developed a better understanding of the books, and how I truly understood Orwell. Ironically, his attempt to fear-monger about socialism, he started me down a path that would make me a socialist. This was the same teacher who had us write an essay about how global warming wasn’t real (he gave us two articles, one denying it and one poorly attempting to say it exists, and because English grading is, in his words “subjective” and he believed global warming is a conspiracy made up by time magazine, if you wanted to not fail, you defended the idea) and showed Milton Friedman speech’s in class. Knowing what I know now, he was basically crazy, and most of what I learned from him is how to critically listen to the ideas of someone meant to be an authority figure, and to not believe what anyone tells you without looking into it yourself.
It's insane that some teacher is allowed to indoctrinate scientific lies onto his students
@@artonio5887 Today I've had someone tell me that transwomen are biological women because everyone is biological.
If I do not accept this so called "scientific truth" based purely on the amputation of nuance, I am transphobic.
What do you make of this ?
@@Antiteshmis - don't know about Artur but what I make of it is that you want to start an argument so you can attempt tp bully others into your point of view.... good luck with that
@@danielcrafter9349 And what would my point of view be ?
That biological sex exists and that the increasing trend towards unscientific dogma being pushed through the education system is just as worrying as the example given ?
@@Antiteshmis he says "bully others into your point of view" but the ones that bully the most are the one pushing for trans rights and other nonsense
found your channel recently, I'm binge watching everything
Thanks! I hope you've been enjoying some of it, haha!
This is one of those channels where I wish I could forget everything I’ve seen so I can watch for the first time again. So good
Great choice!
same
It's from lord of the rings, I'm sure.
Man speaks longer sentences in English than Cicero could write in Latin.
William Faulkner fan
@@altusshow7574 Molly Bloom
At the end of the video my mind was blown, the way you tied the points together in your conclusion was remarkable and very impactful. Amazing job and amazing video
I was surprised when reading 1984 to see that Big Brother only "watched" 20% of the population (members of the party).
Kinda funny that it seems that the professor didn't mention that detail. He sure likes to pick and chose certain parts of Orwell's writings to fit his lectures which isn't very professional if you ask me.
It is the 20% that matter. The rest has no political power. Furthermore, Orwell couldn't know about AI, if he knew, he would have let the state use AI to watch all people.
Big Brother Has Left To Get A Gallon Of Milk
"The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind." - Albert Camus
So has everyone to some degree
@@s1lentsound
Yes. But it's not a good habit to be overly attached to your own views, to the point that you resist changing them when they're clearly incorrect.
Who told you to stop rolling that boulder
"Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality." Adorno (a postmodern Neo-Marxist SJW)
Americans, God love'em, think it's normal behavior. Used to be just annoying but always there was the potential for devastating effects.
animal farm could also easily be used as a critisism of the american revolution, where literal slave owners were talking about "all men are created equal"
Man, what a production! Thanks for this amazing documentary! Love it! I cant imagine the work and study to do that! Greetings from this humble teacher from Brazil!