Talk:Ingsoc

2003-2005

Spoiler Tag: Is it just me or does the soiler section become one long horizontal box ? If so what can be done about it ? ~ User-Fenix(dont remember my login atm)

Victory Gin was for Outer Party, not for Proles. 217.98.138.204 19:26 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

You are correct sir! I have accordingly substituted "beer" and added the other distractions described by Orwell.

Also moved the V. Gin up to the outer party para. With respect to that and cigs being the only vices: the encounter between Winston and the prole prostitute is problematic, as it is clear that he, exemplifying all male party members, derives no pleasure from the act; it's also clear that his relationship with his estranged wife is also meant to be typical of marriage in this world.

Ellsworth 23:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article mentions Marx's social class theory as a "three-class socio-economic structure". I'm not a Marxist expert, but i believe his theory's included 2 main classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He does mentions other classes such as landlord, merchant, middle class, and petty bourgeoisie. But I see his theory revolving around those 2 classes. You also comment how it's left unexplained in the novel how Ingsoc established and maintained control over certain areas and call it a significant weakness in the plot. This seems like it should be under another section entitled Criticism or such so it is separate from the definition of Ingsoc. --Datajunkie 04:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ingsoc is also a political punk band from Warsaw, Indiana. Visit their site http://www.destroybigbrother.com for more information." This does not strike me as overly important. Any objections to deleting it? — Itai (f&t) 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Insoc vs Nazi

has anyone else noticed that the name Insoc has almost identical origins to nazi? was this intentional/interesting enough to put into the article?--CallmeNiel 19:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. For onr thing I believe Orwell spoke for the need for a specifically "English socialism" (one which respected English traditions of freedom etc rather than a nationalistic one) in Ihe Lion and the Unicorn so I think it may be wry nod to that A Geek Tragedy 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Labour

I don't remember if it was Orwell himself or a commentator who wrote that, while it is obviously based in Stalinism, it is purported as an evolution of English Socialism. Orwell saw worrisome tendences in it.

Image

The image on this page seems to be taken from this webcomic under fair use. It seems to me that since the image has no official connection to the book (correct me if I'm wrong) then there's little point using it, especially when someone could draw a freely licensed alternative in about five minutes. Any comments? --Cherry blossom tree 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, it is a good image but someone could easily make an alternative. If we keep the image then there would be little motivation to make a freely licensed one. --Keithg 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Google Images results for "INGSOC". The same logo appears in 5 of the first 18 results. It's not from the 1984 movie (this is the logo from that movie). Just things to consider.--Porsche997SBS 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is released under the Free Art License anyway, so this image is free. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is free, but pointless. I have removed it. Rangek 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Far-right

What evidence is there that the Party could be considered "far-right" as this article claims? -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this section keeps getting changed, so I'm going to ask one more time. As far as I am aware, Orwell wrote 1984 as a criticism of Stalinism. Everything that happens in 1984 can be someway related to the 1930s era of the USSR. Therefore, the ideology should be Stalinism, and the political position should be far-left. Is there any objections to this claim: make them now or I'm going to change the box, and then revert any succeeding edits to it as vandalism. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it generally agreed to be a criticism of totalinarianism, regardless of the claimed philosophy of the regime? The fact that it's based on a socialist regime gone bad is not relevant imho, since Orwell was himself a (mostly democratic) socialist. He fought for the Marxist party in the Spanish Civil War, after all. And as an allegory, I think it points to the duplicity of all politicians in whatever circumstances, and warns us to be suspicious of our leaders' motives and especially their rhetoric. If it's of any interest, he based much of the philosophy and methods of Ingsoc on the ideas of James Burnham's Managerial Revolution, as he made clear once in a piece of journalism (although I can't find a reference I'm afraid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.216.223 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Found it here: http://www.george-orwell.org/James_Burnham_and_the_Managerial_Revolution/0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.216.223 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You can classify differing interpretations of the actual novel with whatever term you wish, apparently it's "vandalism" here. The problem with debating the spectrum position of a fictional political structure is that there is no real world equivalent, therefore, we have to rely on the text. In reality, it is syncretic. O'Brien stated in the novel, and it is quoted in the article, that both the German Nazis and Russian Communists came close to the Party in their methods, but didn't realize the nature of their motives, which is to maintain strict social control. Like it or not, Orwell's motivation wasn't to merely criticize Stalinism, but the totalitarian ideologies that existed at the time, including Fascism. You can interpret the phrase "English Socialism" a number of ways in the novel, but the word "socialism" alone does not denote a society with socialist characteristics. National Socialism was hardly anything like socialism, save for certain aspects of a well-developed welfare state. Just because a group says they support a type of social structure doesn't mean they do. In 1984, the Ingsoc government employed strict police control to maintain a grossly stratified social order, and this is hardly what I would consider "far-left." I'm editing this article. I'll leave the Stalinist component of the Ideology field, but "Ingsoc" was obviously a syncretic movement. However, the police reinforcement of a stratified society is justification enough to reclassify it as Far-Right as well. --Apjohns54 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Describing totalitarian socialism as right wing is laughable these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ingsoc is unmistakably left-wing. As is any other totalitarian or collectivized social system. Left-wing vs right-wing is statism at the left end and some sort of ideology of freedom/individual rights at the right end. What you have here is the spectacle of left-wingers changing this in order to save their ideology, by keeping their theory separated from instances of it in practice. When they couldn't get away with labeling it "right-wing", they fell back on saying "Well, it doesn't qualify as either left or right" (It's "syncretic"). Only a left-winger has something to gain by removing Ingsoc from the political spectrum, because if they allowed it to be placed on the spectrum, it would indict them. Labeling it as "syncretic" is just as biased as labeling it "right-wing", because they're both attempts to distance Ingsoc from the left.

And before anyone comes in about anarchism, there are two main types of anarchist that must be distinguished between. "Anarcho-Capitalist" and "Anarcho-Communist". One is (mistaken) right wing and one is (mistaken) left wing. The right-wing anarchist mistakenly believes they can have capitalism without a government. The left wing variant of anarchist is a communist who mistakenly believes that they can have their collective, egalitarian utopia without using a totalitarian government to bring it about. Amaroq64 (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"far right" - ridiculous

Ironic how the mechanics described in 1984 are right there in an article about 1984! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.54.99 (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous how right-wingers constantly attempt to convolute the right-left spectrum to skew anything they dislike (ie. the Nazis, who many right wingers disavow, at least in contemporary discourse) as left wing. In fact, the terms right and left wing refer to reactionaries and radicals respectively (Which is why Nazis/Fascists, as extreme traditionalists, have always been grouped with the right.) Right and left are a difference of values, whereas some on the right would like everyone to believe it a difference between libertarianism and totalitarianism. In fact, the most radically anti-statist doctrines such as Anarchism have traditionally associated with the far left, and in fact all Communists similarly advocate the abolition of the state at least in theory. I think Orwell probably left the leanings of Ingsoc deliberately vague in order to underscore a universal message that transcends right-left bickering; neither side has a monopoly on totalitarianism and Ingsoc could be far left just as easily as far right, or anywhere in between.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DMPineau (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're the one skewing the spectum here, to skew anything you dislike as right-wing. The Left-ism of Nazi-ism is right there in its name. National Socialism. The left-right spectrum actually IS totalitarianism on the left end and some form of pro-liberty ideology on the right. Even the religious right, who are wanna be theocrats, has to pay lip service to the idea of individual rights, because if they overtly called for the oppression they desire, they'd lose any pretense of being right-wing. They always have to come up with rationalizations to make it sound like their special brand of tyranny is really freedom. ("Unborn infants have rights too!", "They're trying to coerce us into wedding gay people", etc.)

You're branding the ends of the left-right spectrum according to shallow non-essentials, which is a thing the left-wing loves to do. For example, Nazi-ism is seen as right-wing. Why? Because the Nazis were racists, and the Left LOVES to brand the opposition as racists. That's a shallow non-essential. Another example. The Left likes to consider Fascism to be right-wing. Why? Because of a quote in which Mussolini says that “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” This fits perfectly with the image of corporate tyranny the Left wants to attach to the Right. And that notion is thoroughly debunked here. These are both malevolent, purposeful mis-brandings by non-essentials. Both Nazi-ism and Fascism were forms of tyranny where the government oppressed the individual.

Amaroq64 (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarian socialism is the exact opposite of the American right so to call them both right is as conflicting as it could get.

obliteration of the self

Hey, "obliteration of the self" redirects here, but those words don't appear on this page. This means that if someone searches for "obliteration of the self" they are given no specific text relating to that phrase, and why they have been brought here. 75.73.32.46 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes to Infobox

A user recently changed the "Political Position" section of the infobox to "Far-Right", after which the correction was made by another user that changed it to its status at the time I'm writing this, so that it reads "far-right/far-Left." Since this essentially expresses the same conclusion reached above, that the political philosophy in the book incorporates aspects of both far-left and far-right ideologies, I'm going to revert it to its original status (Syncretic). If anyone disagrees, it should be discussed, rather than anonymously altered to read "far-left" or "far-right" one way or the other.--Apjohns54 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Source?

Is everything in here found in the book? It seems to me (and, admittedly, I haven't read the book in decades) that much in here is either purely speculative, or at least the product of someone other mind than Eric Blair's. 98.82.1.253 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UT)

I agree, this article lacks notability. It's a description of the political system in 1984. It belongs in novel's article, if anywhere. I'm going to add a "in-universe" template and hope someone takes notice. --Soren84 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder why the "other ideologies" section is written so authoritatively. O'Brien says the Goldstein book is a fabrication, and I'm inclined to believe him. Also, if you consider the Appendix, describing Newspeak in the past tense (and the fact that the rest of the book is in past tense as well), it's entirely possible that toward the end of the book Oceania was invaded by a 'more democratic' entity/country, or there was some kind of democratic uprising? Jerenept (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Inner Party do not "work little" They have a better standard of living than the other classes but are described as having a laboured existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.245.189 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The V

What does the big V in the Ingsoc symbol mean? --80.108.153.176 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Somebody said, it could stand for victory. Is that true? --80.108.153.176 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)