creators吧 关注:176贴子:1,273
  • 1回复贴,共1
Sir Thomas more has raised a concept called utopia, an ultimate and perfect form of human society. Unfortunately, the ultimate form of society we once be closed to is not utopia but dystopia, a society which completely dominated by totalitarianism. 1984 is a novel which portrayed such a dystopia country, Oceania.
The Oceania is a totalitarian country. Totalitarianism is an extreme political form which advocates a society should be dominated by a single powerful leader or group. The leader of a totalitarian country must have a firm belief in order to affect his people and consolidate the rule of society. The leader stands out when people need him, and he fights for the country and make the people be proud of their country again, what the people adore is not the leader but the leader’s spirit. So we can say that totalitarianism is not only a sequence of human’s lust but also a result of human’s weakness and dependency. In the book 1984, the leader of Oceania, the Big Brother, is a hero of all the citizens in the country, even though he may not exist anymore, but he is always the central spirit of the party. Totalitarianism has many similar points with tyranny but actually quite different from ancient tyranny, because a totalitarian country can’t be backward and vulnerable. In fact, a totalitarian country must be an advanced country with a strong basis of technology in order to control every single facets of its citizens’ daily life. As you can see, technology development is surprisingly an important catalyst for totalitarianism’s formation. In the book 1984, the Telescreen is a very crucial item. Thought polices use telescreens to monitor citizens’ behaviors and make precise analysis for all of them. The telescreens is produced with many high technologies, it showing internet videos, recording people’s behaviors and enduring vandalism. How can Oceania control its people without such a powerful item?
Though the fiction 1984 have exaggerated statements, but totalitarianism indeed exist in our history and even today’s world. For example, North Korea is a totalitarian country up till now. North Korea is dominated by Kin’s family for over 60 years, by contrast to South Korea, it is a very poor and backward country. Most people in North Korea are suffering from starvation and poverty, but they still believe in their ‘wonderful’ general. North Korea educates its people that other countries in the world are very cruel and inhuman. I have once watched a North Korea documentary film, the narrator is always talking sadly about how despair Americans are. The distorted education actually works, it make the people very faithful to their general Kin.
USSR is a totalitarian country during Stalin’s domination. Stalin had some very cruel actions in the history even though he prevented the world from Nazism Germany with America and England. During the Five-Year Plans for the National Economy in the Soviet Union, Stalin forced his workers to reach high production. Low yielding workers were punished or even killed. During the Kolkhoz, all the farmers were forced to sell their production at certain prize. The movement made many farmers despaired and slowed down the development of agriculture. Stalin also killed many party members and innocents during the Great purge in order to consolidate the party’s domination. In that period of time, one of the most terrible intelligence agencies in human history, КГБ, was founded. Secret polices watched the people in the shadow and killed all the people who were regarded as traitors.
From the history of North Korea and Russia, we can learn that totalitarian countries have many common grounds. A totalitarian country’s leader never cares about individuals’ right, the interests of individuals and collectives are subordinated to those of the state; a totalitarian country’s leader prefers to distort the history if he needs to do so, because he believes stable society and domination is much more important than truth; a totalitarian country’s leader has a subordinate secret service which can eliminate all objectors; a totalitarian country’s leader must be an idol with both power and glory. A totalitarian country may form after a cataclysm. It is true of Germany which suffered from grand economic crisis, USSR which suffered from WWII, North Korea which suffered from the Korean War, China which suffered from 3 year natural disasters and even Oceania which suffered from everlasting wars. Besides, a totalitarian country can’t exist in ancient time because technology is a critical tool.


IP属地:中国香港1楼2013-09-01 02:52回复
    In the novel 1984, Oceania is an exaggerated totalitarian country without any democracy. But most people in the novel live a ‘happy life’. As far as I’m concerned, people don’t need democracy to be happy, because in a totalitarian country, happiness can be distorted. In the end of the novel 1984, Winston feel extreme happy and prefer to die. Now I need to mention about John Stuart Mill’s definition of the pleasure. He said explicitly in his masterpieceUtilitarianism: “The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it.” In the novel, Winston had worked hardly to live a ordinary life without dream and desire, and than he was ‘repaired’ by the upper class in the country. He desired to admire Big Brother wholeheartedly after suffering from the extreme pain. He made it and became a person with extreme pleasure. From the view of utilitarianism, since this kind of distorted happiness is indeed what he preferred, I have no idea how to contradict the remark that democracy is not really the prerequisite of happiness. Nevertheless, for me, utilitarianism can’t justify the foul actions of totalitarianism which they used to control the emotion of human being. Morality of utilitarianism actually has a critical issue that it failed to distinguish higher and lower pressure in the analysis of happiness. For instance, you prefer getting 200000 dollars and be forbidden to get a job for five years or getting a job which can make you earn 200000 dollars in five years? I think much people will choose the prior one, but it is actually a choice which can ruin you in five years. Realization of value, it is one of the most intensive and long lasting pleasures which can be possessed by a person even in the cost-benefit analysis of utilitarianism. The pleasure, or pure happiness which was gotten by Winston in the novel actually has no value to the society, for it does not reveal Winston’s value or make any benefit of the country’s GDP. The upper class in Oceania controls people’s mind by producing a contrast between the suffering of intense physical pain and the inferior happiness based on illusion for them, and prevents them from to be in touch with pleasures of high value by overseeing everybody with telescreens and thought polices.
    Now I need to claim that even though happiness can be accessed easily without democracy, democracy is still a relatively justice and acceptable policy compares to totalitarianism. Human is hoggish by natural. Democracy esteems people possess most sacred and binding rights of themselves, so that people nowadays mostly agree with it. Besides, in a totalitarianism country, people can hardly realize their value, they live like a large group of orthograde livestock without dream, achievability and faith. It is contradicted with the general belief of human society’s ultimate form even it is one of the ultimate forms of human society.
    Now in Egypt, an upheaval is taking place, people fight for their freedom because their government is imperious. The turmoil is indeed the consequence of people’s need on democracy. The people are at fault to make the society chaos but they can be understood because people have their rights to fight for freedom. The realization of democracy always needs people to sacrifice, because totalitarian government is too powerful. In most democracy movements, a lot of people sacrificed in the battles. The only exception ‘Glorious revolution’ is not a real revolution of democracy, it is based on compromises between the king and the revolutionary party. The noblemen are human who deserve their incomparable rights, but the revolutionary party deprives part of their rights in order to realize more people’s rights. Ironically, the revolutionary party broke their own principle to bring their principle into the regime of England by sacrifice part of the noblemen’s rights. So there were actually someone who sacrificed for the revolution not at the expense of life but sacred human rights.


    IP属地:中国香港2楼2013-09-01 02:52
    回复