[kazagistar]

So the idea behind this is what? That you shouldn't trust the revolutionaries because they dont have your interests in mind? That its hopeless? This model of the world is just run of the mill statusquoism trying to make people too despondent to tear down hierarchy, not some deep truth.

To be honest I dont know if Orwell agreed with the position of the high or not, but the fact people repeat this propaganda of the "high" from 1984 is absurd.

[analyst74]

You absolutely shouldn't trust the revolutionists who tell you to die for their causes. Revolutions and chaos in general make most people's lives worse off, hence why they tend to happen when peoples' lives are so bad that they can't possibly get worse than status quo.

That doesn't mean revolutions are bad from a system point of view, they serve as reboots for a system plagued with memory leaks.

[malandrew]

And there is no guarantee that what replaces what you had previously is any better.

[dang]

Orwell's biography is so famous that we can guess the basics of how he would answer this: revolutionaries don't necessarily have your interests in mind; it's not hopeless; oppose the status quo; don't be blinded by ideology; be honest before being political.

[kaycebasques]

Which biography are you referring to? I’m seeing a few. I didn’t know it was famous and never thought to check, but would definitely like to read now that you mention it.

P.S. it’s always a treat to stumble on a non-moderator comment from dang

[dang]

Oh, by biography I just meant his life story. I didn't have a specific book in mind.

Orwell is famous for having been early to break with political allies whose tactics he abhorred, even though they were fighting for his side. He had a genius for intellectual honesty, which made his writing exceptionally clear. If there's a clearer writer in English I wonder who it is.

[TurkishPoptart]

Well said.

[mrzimmerman]

I've read it as we repeat a cycle where people are always far up on top and the only way to break that cycle is to be content with more or less everyone being in or near the middle.

Or put another way: So long as there is a high that people can day dream about becoming then there will never be equality for the majority of people. Otherwise people will get into the high places, slam the door shut as soon as they can, and the fighting and day dreaming will continue.

[asjw]

How would you avoid it?

I agree with your sentiment and I am probably on the lower end of the middle class now, coming from a working class family, but I can't find a way to avoid that someone will get more than me by simply not caring about obeying the rules.

If you have more resources you can buy your exemptions from the law. Probably from someone who can be "bought" because that money is a significant amount compared to what usually earns.

I hoped in this third Industrial revolution to free us up from labor, but it looks like people don't get it well when you tell them "your job doesn't exist anymore" even if it's generally a good thing.

[fungicide]

"The Fourth Industrial Revolution" is one of the most successfully lobbied and marketed instruments of our time. It has preoccupied governments and distracted them from addressing existing inequalities.

[shigawire]

Alternatively it can be seen as a lesson for the low to not allow the middle to use them as a weapon. If they want to avoid this same result they'd need to take over their own revolution, not be led by the middle.

[lotsofpulp]

"the low" are not a static entity. People will choose to behave differently once their status changes.

[kaycebasques]

> for the low to not allow the middle to use them

By Orwell’s definition you can’t depend on The Low to defend themselves

> The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives

[Draiken]

On the large scale, I think Orwell's view is correct. The pattern always repeats itself.

However on the individual level, you can reap the benefits of the revolutions and will die before the next cycle, so there's always at least some incentive to challenge the status quo.

It doesn't change the fact that it's hopeless on the large scale.

[fspeech]

Technology has the potential of flattening the social hierarchy somewhat. Or more likely it gives some an out even if they can't get the social status they want -- like making it easier for one to live a life cut off from immediate social circles (and status competition). Anonymous online association is an example that comes to mind.

[malandrew]

> That you shouldn't trust the revolutionaries because they dont have your interests in mind? That its hopeless?

If you've read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, chronicling his experience in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the socialists, I think that's a reasonable interpretation of his position.

[youdontknowtho]

The whole thrust of the novel is futility. Orwell was a great writer, but not a prophet or a saint. Take what works and reject the rest.