I think it is a mistake to speak of the proles (the 80%) as a category. How can a this group organize if it contains diametrically opposed wings -- as it does. Even if we exclude the hard right (many of whom would be among Orwell's proles) there is little ground for every day working person to community with the far progressive wing of the proles.
Before any organizing can occur we need some kind of powerful connecting thread for the 80% that is not shouted down by wings.
Seth, interesting point. The answer, I think, is a return to good old fashioned class warfare, as distinct from the currently fashionable identity politics. This has arguably been the biggest mistake of the Left, both in the US and in the UK, ever since the infamous "third way" taken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. De-emphasize identity and focus on the fact that 80% (or whatever) of the population is exploited by a small minority.
There are a lot of fans of the current US administration among the lower classes and plenty of those in the higher classes among it's biggest opponents. I am not sure class warfare would turn things around, but I certainly agree that the focus on identity has been a huge mistake.
I think I understand the reality of systemic oppressions better than most having grown up in a poor multi-ethnic community (next to a crack house in my high school years). I also work at a liberal university and feel very few in that community have had real exposure and there is a lot of posturing that is easily detected by many in the lower classes. One of the reasons Trump made big inroads there. I agree the emphasis would be better placed on income than cultural identity but there are other issues.
I think the changes needed to be made by the left are vast and I don't see any of it happening -- I see plenty of doubling down. If our institutions are to regain trust I think they need to be far less ideologica. Your old interlocutor Dan Kaufman could be abrasive, but I think he saw all this coming early on.
My general point though is that the proles are greatly divided and seeking to address that division must precede any organizing. That or the organizing must come from the center of the proles, but centrists tend not to be organizers.
Seth, I agree and I'm not suggesting that there are easy solutions. But a divide prols is precisely what the uber-rich want and exploit. If only those people who so easily see through the rethoric on the Left were as perspicacious when it comes to rhetoric on the Right...
I think many if not most of the center-left -- which I guess is where I am now - have no problem seeing trough the rhetoric on the right. I make no moral equivalences. I see the current administration as vile.
I just feel the best way to fight them is stop giving them the examples they continually point to on the far left. I think the Trump admin continually overplays their hand, but we seem defenseless to take advantage of that tendency.
I have a brother on the far right. The rest of my family is very progressive. I am of the left, but in no mans land. It is very personal for me.
Seth, I am frustrated with some of the current Left as well. They do seem to double down on their emphasis on identity politics and the abandonment of the working class, which several observers think are some of the main reasons for their debacle and the rise of Trumpism. Something very similar happened in Italy immediately after WWI, when the socialist in the span of a few years went from having an overwhelming majority in Parliament to being replaced and then persecuted by the fascists.
Damian Lewis must surely be a good choice for contributing to this documentary. We are currently enjoying him playing the role of Henry VIII in Wolfs Hall.
I am looking forward to being disturbed by the documentary, I always avoided Orwell out of fear to feel, well, gloomy and being, well, disturbed…but as you laid out…it‘s necessary something and ever more often..
Margaret Mead" “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead
This is to a great extent what has given Trump his power, the proles have turned towards him.
They may not be the sharpest knives around, but they have a better of view of what is happening to them, as well as the numbers and means to change it.
Michael, I think the American "proles" have been fooled, in great part thanks to widespread ignorance and lack of critical thinking in this country. I don't think Trump has any idea, or interest, in fixing the very real problems of this country. He is interested only in self-aggrandizing and self-enriching. At those things he has certainly been doing an outstanding job!
All of which may well be true, but the working class knows when inflation hits it, when there is way too much competition for jobs through immigration, legal or not, and when they feel heard as opposed to being talked down to. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the French Revolution, gave a very precise and detailed examination to what will make them revolt, and rough labor or buying conditions are near his top offenders.
Michael, oh I don't doubt for a second that people, working class or not, are perfectly capable of assessing their financial situation, degree of hardship, and so forth. What they don't see to be able to assess equally well is who may or may not offering genuine solutions instead of self-serving rheotoric.
In general I agree with you. They are very aware of what they are voting against, based on their history of that administration, while the new one, is an unknown. There is perhaps no better illustration than this steady habit among the electorate that HOPE does indeed spring eternally.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the notion that people didn't know what a Trump administration would be like, given what he did during his first term. Indeed, even before his first time, it was pretty obvious what he was and was not going to do. I don't think it's hope that springs eternal, but stupidity.
I can easily understand you conundrum. For the working class, he was a vast improvement, cutting inflation down to 1.9% by the end of his first term. Jobs were not a problem. What they remembered of Obama, and later of Biden, was that inflation was a problem and so was immigration, someone, anyone who promised to make those two fronts of the economy better was a shoe in. Promising to continue Obama's economic ideas or Biden's proved the candidate either did not understand the working classes problem or didn't care, and frankly, they didn't give a damn which it was.
"his reputation has waxed and waned depending on how others have interpreted or exploited him. For instance, the CIA, back in 1954, funded an animated version of Animal Farm for purposes of Cold War propaganda"
I had to take a "Response to Literature" course in high school, the idea was out of concern too many Americans were opposing "bad" ideologies like communism or fascism without knowing what they mean and we need to fix that. An honorable intent, but by "studying" communism, we didn't read Marx, any academic history of communist nations or distinctions between the various communist countries, or watch a documentary. We read "Animal Farm"*, not a bad allegory for Stalinist USSR, but if this is studying communism, I am also a qualified nuclear weapons expert after watching "Godzilla"**. We also studied "1984" as a lesson on fascism and "Brave New World" for totally-generic-authoritarianism-and-definitely-not-excessive-capitalism. We look at real life for possible examples and focus on other countries*** while the US is only guilty of politicians lying from time to time (they do, but we've got all the other problems as well).
It seems a common problem with the most nightmarish dystopias in fiction or reality is that when people have a need to criticize something, there's a tendency to go for maximum sensationalism and bring them up as a comparison instead of just seeing it as the worst case scenario/extreme**** warning. Shallow entertainment is prolefeed if it is trying to replace all aspects of news and culture, not when porn, TikTok, and sports JUST exist. Newspeak is concerning, but to extend a "Big Brother" comparison to every leader that's made lies or euphemisms is risking ignoring nuance. Ironically heavily criticizing mass propaganda sometimes end up being mass propaganda.
*I am still irate that when discussing Mr. Frederick, we were told this represented nothing in real life and we should discuss why Orwell included it. Represented Nothing? Hitler? Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Operation Barbarossa? Stalingrad? I dislike Stalinist USSR as much as the next guy but we can't deny their contribution to WW2 just because of how awful the regime was.
**The original 1954 one
***Apparently Japanese school uniforms are a horrifying suppression of individualism, completely ignoring you only have to wear it on school days, it's not any more oppressive than a work uniform.
****Especially when the logistics are considered, dictatorships aren't just morally bad, they are often pretty ineffective the bigger they get. Oceania is way too large for the party to be that small if "thought criminals" can emerge even from the homeland, but a bigger party means more inevitable potential infighting and collapse.
Willy, I certainly agree that nuance is necessary, and that sometimes cries of "fascism!" are out of proportion and do more damage than not. That said, it would be equally foolish, and arguably more dangerous, not to be on the lookout for rising autocracies. History teaches us that we often don't see them coming until it is too late.
I think that’s certainly what he meant, in part. But if the “proles” constituted 80% of the country then it would include also what we call the middle class. In other words, exploited people of the world unite!
Well the middle class looks a lot different today than it did in Orwell's time (even though the middle class has been in decline for quite some time now). Did Orwell have communist sympathies?
Jim, yes, what counts as "middle" clearly changes through time. But not in relative terms, that is, compared to the poor (below) and the rich and uber-rich (above).
As for Orwell's sympathies, he was critical of totalitarianism, including Stalinism, and he expressed concerns about the obviously oppressive aspects of communism. But he did support socialist ideals.
I think it is a mistake to speak of the proles (the 80%) as a category. How can a this group organize if it contains diametrically opposed wings -- as it does. Even if we exclude the hard right (many of whom would be among Orwell's proles) there is little ground for every day working person to community with the far progressive wing of the proles.
Before any organizing can occur we need some kind of powerful connecting thread for the 80% that is not shouted down by wings.
Seth, interesting point. The answer, I think, is a return to good old fashioned class warfare, as distinct from the currently fashionable identity politics. This has arguably been the biggest mistake of the Left, both in the US and in the UK, ever since the infamous "third way" taken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. De-emphasize identity and focus on the fact that 80% (or whatever) of the population is exploited by a small minority.
There are a lot of fans of the current US administration among the lower classes and plenty of those in the higher classes among it's biggest opponents. I am not sure class warfare would turn things around, but I certainly agree that the focus on identity has been a huge mistake.
I think I understand the reality of systemic oppressions better than most having grown up in a poor multi-ethnic community (next to a crack house in my high school years). I also work at a liberal university and feel very few in that community have had real exposure and there is a lot of posturing that is easily detected by many in the lower classes. One of the reasons Trump made big inroads there. I agree the emphasis would be better placed on income than cultural identity but there are other issues.
I think the changes needed to be made by the left are vast and I don't see any of it happening -- I see plenty of doubling down. If our institutions are to regain trust I think they need to be far less ideologica. Your old interlocutor Dan Kaufman could be abrasive, but I think he saw all this coming early on.
My general point though is that the proles are greatly divided and seeking to address that division must precede any organizing. That or the organizing must come from the center of the proles, but centrists tend not to be organizers.
Seth, I agree and I'm not suggesting that there are easy solutions. But a divide prols is precisely what the uber-rich want and exploit. If only those people who so easily see through the rethoric on the Left were as perspicacious when it comes to rhetoric on the Right...
Thanks for the responses.
I think many if not most of the center-left -- which I guess is where I am now - have no problem seeing trough the rhetoric on the right. I make no moral equivalences. I see the current administration as vile.
I just feel the best way to fight them is stop giving them the examples they continually point to on the far left. I think the Trump admin continually overplays their hand, but we seem defenseless to take advantage of that tendency.
I have a brother on the far right. The rest of my family is very progressive. I am of the left, but in no mans land. It is very personal for me.
Seth, I am frustrated with some of the current Left as well. They do seem to double down on their emphasis on identity politics and the abandonment of the working class, which several observers think are some of the main reasons for their debacle and the rise of Trumpism. Something very similar happened in Italy immediately after WWI, when the socialist in the span of a few years went from having an overwhelming majority in Parliament to being replaced and then persecuted by the fascists.
Damian Lewis must surely be a good choice for contributing to this documentary. We are currently enjoying him playing the role of Henry VIII in Wolfs Hall.
I am looking forward to being disturbed by the documentary, I always avoided Orwell out of fear to feel, well, gloomy and being, well, disturbed…but as you laid out…it‘s necessary something and ever more often..
Thanks !
Frank, let us know your thoughts once you watch it!
Margaret Mead" “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead
This is to a great extent what has given Trump his power, the proles have turned towards him.
They may not be the sharpest knives around, but they have a better of view of what is happening to them, as well as the numbers and means to change it.
Michael, I think the American "proles" have been fooled, in great part thanks to widespread ignorance and lack of critical thinking in this country. I don't think Trump has any idea, or interest, in fixing the very real problems of this country. He is interested only in self-aggrandizing and self-enriching. At those things he has certainly been doing an outstanding job!
All of which may well be true, but the working class knows when inflation hits it, when there is way too much competition for jobs through immigration, legal or not, and when they feel heard as opposed to being talked down to. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the French Revolution, gave a very precise and detailed examination to what will make them revolt, and rough labor or buying conditions are near his top offenders.
Michael, oh I don't doubt for a second that people, working class or not, are perfectly capable of assessing their financial situation, degree of hardship, and so forth. What they don't see to be able to assess equally well is who may or may not offering genuine solutions instead of self-serving rheotoric.
In general I agree with you. They are very aware of what they are voting against, based on their history of that administration, while the new one, is an unknown. There is perhaps no better illustration than this steady habit among the electorate that HOPE does indeed spring eternally.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the notion that people didn't know what a Trump administration would be like, given what he did during his first term. Indeed, even before his first time, it was pretty obvious what he was and was not going to do. I don't think it's hope that springs eternal, but stupidity.
I can easily understand you conundrum. For the working class, he was a vast improvement, cutting inflation down to 1.9% by the end of his first term. Jobs were not a problem. What they remembered of Obama, and later of Biden, was that inflation was a problem and so was immigration, someone, anyone who promised to make those two fronts of the economy better was a shoe in. Promising to continue Obama's economic ideas or Biden's proved the candidate either did not understand the working classes problem or didn't care, and frankly, they didn't give a damn which it was.
"his reputation has waxed and waned depending on how others have interpreted or exploited him. For instance, the CIA, back in 1954, funded an animated version of Animal Farm for purposes of Cold War propaganda"
I had to take a "Response to Literature" course in high school, the idea was out of concern too many Americans were opposing "bad" ideologies like communism or fascism without knowing what they mean and we need to fix that. An honorable intent, but by "studying" communism, we didn't read Marx, any academic history of communist nations or distinctions between the various communist countries, or watch a documentary. We read "Animal Farm"*, not a bad allegory for Stalinist USSR, but if this is studying communism, I am also a qualified nuclear weapons expert after watching "Godzilla"**. We also studied "1984" as a lesson on fascism and "Brave New World" for totally-generic-authoritarianism-and-definitely-not-excessive-capitalism. We look at real life for possible examples and focus on other countries*** while the US is only guilty of politicians lying from time to time (they do, but we've got all the other problems as well).
It seems a common problem with the most nightmarish dystopias in fiction or reality is that when people have a need to criticize something, there's a tendency to go for maximum sensationalism and bring them up as a comparison instead of just seeing it as the worst case scenario/extreme**** warning. Shallow entertainment is prolefeed if it is trying to replace all aspects of news and culture, not when porn, TikTok, and sports JUST exist. Newspeak is concerning, but to extend a "Big Brother" comparison to every leader that's made lies or euphemisms is risking ignoring nuance. Ironically heavily criticizing mass propaganda sometimes end up being mass propaganda.
*I am still irate that when discussing Mr. Frederick, we were told this represented nothing in real life and we should discuss why Orwell included it. Represented Nothing? Hitler? Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Operation Barbarossa? Stalingrad? I dislike Stalinist USSR as much as the next guy but we can't deny their contribution to WW2 just because of how awful the regime was.
**The original 1954 one
***Apparently Japanese school uniforms are a horrifying suppression of individualism, completely ignoring you only have to wear it on school days, it's not any more oppressive than a work uniform.
****Especially when the logistics are considered, dictatorships aren't just morally bad, they are often pretty ineffective the bigger they get. Oceania is way too large for the party to be that small if "thought criminals" can emerge even from the homeland, but a bigger party means more inevitable potential infighting and collapse.
Willy, I certainly agree that nuance is necessary, and that sometimes cries of "fascism!" are out of proportion and do more damage than not. That said, it would be equally foolish, and arguably more dangerous, not to be on the lookout for rising autocracies. History teaches us that we often don't see them coming until it is too late.
Does anyone have any idea when this will air in the uk?
John, no, sorry. But keep us posted if you find out!
Should we see the proles as another word for proletariat? Was Orwell urging "workers of the world, unite!"?
I think that’s certainly what he meant, in part. But if the “proles” constituted 80% of the country then it would include also what we call the middle class. In other words, exploited people of the world unite!
Well the middle class looks a lot different today than it did in Orwell's time (even though the middle class has been in decline for quite some time now). Did Orwell have communist sympathies?
Jim, yes, what counts as "middle" clearly changes through time. But not in relative terms, that is, compared to the poor (below) and the rich and uber-rich (above).
As for Orwell's sympathies, he was critical of totalitarianism, including Stalinism, and he expressed concerns about the obviously oppressive aspects of communism. But he did support socialist ideals.