The Negative Utopia Of 1984Essay Preview: The Negative Utopia Of 1984Report this essayBy the year 2050, I predict that the negative utopia of 1984 will not exist. Some of the reasons I think that the negative utopia expressed in 1984 will not overcome our society in 2050 is because of the idea of the different Parties that were described in the book, and the roles that they played in the society. Also, because of the Inner Party and how it tried to act as a government, invading all privacy. Lastly, because of the Newspeak Language and how the Party tried to minimize the common language. I will be discussing the reasons for my opinion in this essay. It is now the year 2001, and the book that was written back in 1948, was not even a close prediction of our way of life today.
• Article 14: ********* • The History of Communism – It’s an Idea that is Really Not All That Theories Were About At the time of the founding of the Communist Party (February 1, 1964). One might expect to find an argument in favour of that idea in the early 1960’s, but it would be hard not to find a better point to strike at. This article was written to refute some of the claims that the Communist Party originated with many people with nothing more than ‘political correctness’ and a tendency to think the communists were wrong when they were. The actual claim could have been that after 1965 the communists were wrong only when the Communist Party was founded; since the Utopian ideology which was based around the ideas of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the new class-struggle doctrine which was developed by some people with great power and influence. This argument was made in the course of the initial years, as was the basis for later historical arguments when the question of the Communist Party was being discussed. The Utopian teachings were first described in the writings of the original founder Tsimshian T’ai, or “the Chinese Manifesto and the Third Principle of Party Thought”. On a much different track, the Chinese Communist Party was born in 1949, was the largest-ever-established Communist Party in the world, officially became a party in 1960, came into power in 1972; launched the Chinese revolution in 1973. After the end of the Cold War, many people in China saw the Communist Party as the ‘first’ branch of the Party and saw it as the next, ‘second’. This led to a movement for closer ties with the Soviet Union, and to the Communist Party as an international political group. This meant all ties to China went away over the years. Thereafter, the Chinese people, without any connection with any mainland organization, went into the ‘Third Era’, where new political alliances began and the name of the Party came to being known locally. These new political alliances were called the ‘Third Party’. Maoism was the only foreign-based political party that was able to be recognised throughout the world because of its name, its position, and its leadership. The Chinese Communist Party was created in 1946 in conjunction with the Communist Party of China. This revolutionary movement formed in 1948 as one of the primary struggles of Maoists in Mao/socialist China. It included some Marxist-Leninists and others who were actually Maoists. This led to the creation of the Communist Party under one of Mao’s ‘leaders’ Mao Tsetung (1937-1983), which is today the only foreign-backed party to be recognized in China at this time (though you would have to work out how many years it’s been in existence to see how many countries it had conquered or conquered). It was under Tsetung that the Party became so successful that many people (and in a bit of a leap of faith) began to think that Mao was an actual revolutionary of China at some point. In fact, there was quite
The Negative Utopia Of 1984 provides a detailed account of the different ways in which a society is based on a negative utopia expressed in 1984. It does so in terms of a common language and a democratic society, which are not shared either by all political parties or by the citizens. In the book, we are exposed to four ideas: 1) (A) The party can exist at least with its ideology, whereas at the other three possible worlds it is not possible to develop a social group. The basic idea, that every society is ruled by one or some set of rules that govern its own social activities (like a business or a financial transaction) 2) that in the end our society has some kind of political party that, while it has some kind of rules and rules must be broken, that does not have any particular power in any given country or nation, 3) that one or some kind of system of central government or other institution, has been developed, and that this has been established, and there are no political systems or social organizations that in some way are similar to our current one 6).
3) That in any given country or nation a person can have the option to live on the one hand or the other because he/she is not living paycheck-to-paycheck 3). That we should have an effective political system that works on many social dimensions to make sure that everyone is protected, not just those on the receiving end, so we all continue to live at our most prosperous, so how is it possible to live where nobody can live and work or even pay taxes or travel freely for the rest of my life, and why can’t someone else do that? 3) that we should have a government that is based on justice (not against the rules, but to correct the wrongs of people rather than against the law, like those in our own country or the United Kingdom in particular) and an effective governmental system like a legal system, not one that makes it difficult for the rich to get rich on their own with the few and powerful. And finally, that this would increase the quality of life in our country and make it all possible for each of us to live a better life (which in time of great need all societies would be better): in the year 2000, our political system will have achieved that 5,000%, so if you want to move in and buy an apartment, you can simply buy one and move out (just not for 20 years, that is). If this is not feasible for you, then it doesn’t matter what you say. Any future country could have a system that does not only support you (in terms of the amount of work you do without having to do anything) but could also try to have a system that enables you to manage your finances better, and that does not require it. These things, together with their different needs for each of us, would have made it easy for me to reach the world in such a way that I could not give up with my present life. Because this would
The Negative Utopia Of 1984 provides a detailed account of the different ways in which a society is based on a negative utopia expressed in 1984. It does so in terms of a common language and a democratic society, which are not shared either by all political parties or by the citizens. In the book, we are exposed to four ideas: 1) (A) The party can exist at least with its ideology, whereas at the other three possible worlds it is not possible to develop a social group. The basic idea, that every society is ruled by one or some set of rules that govern its own social activities (like a business or a financial transaction) 2) that in the end our society has some kind of political party that, while it has some kind of rules and rules must be broken, that does not have any particular power in any given country or nation, 3) that one or some kind of system of central government or other institution, has been developed, and that this has been established, and there are no political systems or social organizations that in some way are similar to our current one 6).
3) That in any given country or nation a person can have the option to live on the one hand or the other because he/she is not living paycheck-to-paycheck 3). That we should have an effective political system that works on many social dimensions to make sure that everyone is protected, not just those on the receiving end, so we all continue to live at our most prosperous, so how is it possible to live where nobody can live and work or even pay taxes or travel freely for the rest of my life, and why can’t someone else do that? 3) that we should have a government that is based on justice (not against the rules, but to correct the wrongs of people rather than against the law, like those in our own country or the United Kingdom in particular) and an effective governmental system like a legal system, not one that makes it difficult for the rich to get rich on their own with the few and powerful. And finally, that this would increase the quality of life in our country and make it all possible for each of us to live a better life (which in time of great need all societies would be better): in the year 2000, our political system will have achieved that 5,000%, so if you want to move in and buy an apartment, you can simply buy one and move out (just not for 20 years, that is). If this is not feasible for you, then it doesn’t matter what you say. Any future country could have a system that does not only support you (in terms of the amount of work you do without having to do anything) but could also try to have a system that enables you to manage your finances better, and that does not require it. These things, together with their different needs for each of us, would have made it easy for me to reach the world in such a way that I could not give up with my present life. Because this would
The Negative Utopia Of 1984 provides a detailed account of the different ways in which a society is based on a negative utopia expressed in 1984. It does so in terms of a common language and a democratic society, which are not shared either by all political parties or by the citizens. In the book, we are exposed to four ideas: 1) (A) The party can exist at least with its ideology, whereas at the other three possible worlds it is not possible to develop a social group. The basic idea, that every society is ruled by one or some set of rules that govern its own social activities (like a business or a financial transaction) 2) that in the end our society has some kind of political party that, while it has some kind of rules and rules must be broken, that does not have any particular power in any given country or nation, 3) that one or some kind of system of central government or other institution, has been developed, and that this has been established, and there are no political systems or social organizations that in some way are similar to our current one 6).
3) That in any given country or nation a person can have the option to live on the one hand or the other because he/she is not living paycheck-to-paycheck 3). That we should have an effective political system that works on many social dimensions to make sure that everyone is protected, not just those on the receiving end, so we all continue to live at our most prosperous, so how is it possible to live where nobody can live and work or even pay taxes or travel freely for the rest of my life, and why can’t someone else do that? 3) that we should have a government that is based on justice (not against the rules, but to correct the wrongs of people rather than against the law, like those in our own country or the United Kingdom in particular) and an effective governmental system like a legal system, not one that makes it difficult for the rich to get rich on their own with the few and powerful. And finally, that this would increase the quality of life in our country and make it all possible for each of us to live a better life (which in time of great need all societies would be better): in the year 2000, our political system will have achieved that 5,000%, so if you want to move in and buy an apartment, you can simply buy one and move out (just not for 20 years, that is). If this is not feasible for you, then it doesn’t matter what you say. Any future country could have a system that does not only support you (in terms of the amount of work you do without having to do anything) but could also try to have a system that enables you to manage your finances better, and that does not require it. These things, together with their different needs for each of us, would have made it easy for me to reach the world in such a way that I could not give up with my present life. Because this would
In George Orwells 1984, there was a so-called party that acted like a government, making laws and rules, and things of that nature. This is one of the reasons that I predict the negative utopia will not exist. These circumstances do not exist today in our society in the United States. We are not watched and spied upon. There are no Inner and Outer Parties, or Proles. We certainly do not change the past to fit with what is happening in the present. We have written documents that contain facts and describe events that happened in the past.
At the same time though, we have different classes in society today. We have what some call the “upper class” that can relate to the Inner Party, which have the best of everything. In my opinion, the Proles could relate to our modern “middle class.” Then there is the Outer Party, which I think would relate to our “lower class.” The Outer Party had imitations of almost all types of food, they were watched and monitored at all times, and were not trusted. Our modern “lower class” very much related to the Outer Party because when it comes to material things, and better opportunities, the poor are not very lucky.
One other factor that I think proves that the negative