As I recall, it was nigh physically impossible for the Proletariat to rebel, since all thought or idea had been entirely eliminated from the populace.
Gosh, it sounds to me that if someone holds physical force but is mentally incapable of using it, then power must reside in places other than weapons and money.
I think I can guess what Javik would think of your "rebuke" David.
Throw him out the airlock!
A lot of what David says reminds me of that xkcd strip Deinon put up not to long ago:
I don't think I'm to be held responsible for your difficulties in comprehension.
Gosh, it sounds to me that if someone holds physical force but is mentally incapable of using it, then power must reside in places other than weapons and money.
I think the physical force was also held by the party: They were armed with weapons and money after all. What did the Proletariat have? Massed numbers.
So you have the power of money and weapons versus the power of pissed off, motivated masses. Who wins?
The Battle of Chosin Reservoir gives a great answer.
I don't think I'm to be held responsible for your difficulties in comprehension.
But you are to be held responsible for your difficulties in communication. You can't fault his comprehension for failing to understand what the hell you're saying, especially when you change the meaning of your statement to suit whatever idea your touting.
The book explicitly makes it clear the proles have the physical force to overthrow the party. This is not something up for debate.
The book explicitly makes it clear the proles have the physical force to overthrow the party. This is not something up for debate.
No it's not, mainly because it's a lie on your part.
Winston expresses his hope for revolution in the future from the Proles, but also understands why it's impossible. He expresses his belief that the Proles are the only group capable of being human. Nowhere in the novel is there ever given any kind of estimation of the Proles actually capabilities against the Party should they decide to rebel, let alone an unbiased one from a protagonist with a very limited perspective on the world thanks to his upbringing.
So what were you lying? Anyways, you've derailed the discussion from its last point. The main point is that Javik states that with death, honor is meaningless. You disagree. I disagree with your disagreement and asked you to provide reasoning for your belief and evidence for your claim. You did neither. You developed a red herring argument and significantly detracted from the primary discussion. Time to get back on track.
"...But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength. would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!"
"...But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength. would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!"
And this comes from the perspective of a single man in the story. One rule of narrative is that you don't take one character's word, even the protagonists, as evidence if no support is given from the story.
It's from the mind of a bitter, helpless man trying to convince himself that there is some form of hope for the crapsack world of complete domination that he lives in. We don't even know for sure if there is more to Oceania than just Airstrip One, or even London. You have the perspective of one character, who never goes beyond a fifteen mile radius of his apartment, and who has absolutely no access to any kind of truthful information at all. All he has are his beliefs and opinions and his hopes.
Plus, the party wouldn't be as hesitating as modern governments to put down such a revolution.
In fact, I have one absolutely perfect counter-example to your claim: North Korea.
No.
O'Brian makes no attempt to deny the physical strength and numbers of the proles.
"'Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like the animals. Humanity is the Party. The others are outside — irrelevant.’
‘I don’t care. In the end they will beat you. Sooner or later they will see you for what you are, and then they will tear you to pieces.’
‘Do you see any evidence that that is happening? Or any reason why it should?’"
This is very clear. What makes them 'helpless' is not lack of strength.
But they lack the will or the mental capacity to use that "strength" or use it effectively. Which means they ultimately have no strength.
Which ultimately means that 'strength' is clearly about more than muscle.
Javik says that because a bunch of people died, honor doesn't matter.
Shepard says that honor matters no matter how many people died, and indicates it by reminding Javik of everyone he's seen die.
I always took this conversation as Javik flatly telling Shepard that he/she may have to do terrible things during this war to get it over with. Just look at the things he says later on after certain missions. He says he would have taken the deal from the Dalatrass and betray the krogan. He even went so far as to say that he would have opted to detonate the bomb on Tuchanka outright and crush opposition from the krogan (granted this is strictly within the context of the krogan rebellions, not the reaper war). He tells you to toss Legion out of the airlock. Basically, he's telling you that everyone is cannon fodder and all that matters is killing the reapers. And then, of course, we have the final decision, in which we may be eradicating what some might consider a valid domain of life just to destroy the reapers for good. Whether or not the destroy decision is an honorable one is debatable, but if the reapers are dead and the galaxy is saved, I can't say that honor would be the first thing I'd be concerned with.
Which ultimately means that 'strength' is clearly about more than muscle.
And here's where we've seen the beautiful change in the argument that you're so famous for. As I said, it's a key tactic David uses: he changes the meaning of his ambiguous statements as the argument wears on, then makes a suppressed correlative by saying that that was not he was arguing about and that you can't comprehend his argument since he's changed its meaning.
To go back to David's argument about the Proletariat, I'll play a hypothetical. How do you think the results of an uprising by the North Korean people would look if they decided to overthrow the Kim family and the military? I say that because the result is a demonstration of what would happen if the Proletariat tried overthrow the Party.
I'll explain my position; in tactical terms, the Party will always win because they hold all the cards. The weapons, the resources (what few there are), and the military. The gist is that the Party has all the assets. You need assets to win a revolution. A large mass of motivated mooks is still uncoordinated and unarmed.
Basically, you have a large globular mass of people that isn't flexible, mission-capable, or adaptable. And as mentioned, they're fighting an opponent with every asset that is exploitable. Are you looking at this in economic terms? Or tactical? Or strategic?
Also, you're taking a single conversation held within the confines of Room 101 with a tortured captive and a more or less omniscient member of the inner party. The tortured captive is being defiant for the sake of being defiant, and O'Brien is manipulating and screwing with Winston's mind. And you're holding this conversation as some kind of confirmed truth. You've changed the context of statements to mean something that they don't actually mean. As I said, one subjective conversation in the context of torture is itself an authorial mind-screw. Orwell intended 1984 to show what happens when political extremism and totalitarianism takes hold and changes the very reality and history to whatever they want it to be. They have to have all the power to be able to do that. There's no power to be had anywhere else.
Popular uprisings generally succeed only when elements of the state apparatus defect, bringing training and equipment, or decline to be involved.
Yep. It's why 9 out of 10 'heroic' and 'honorable' revolutions fail against their governments. If the regime is totalitarian, not just authoritarian, there's zero chance of an uprising succeeding. It's why the Proletariat have zero chance against the Party. Chaos is order for them. They make sure the people have nothing, and can be nothing.
But we shot off long enough. Back to Javik though. David still hasn't defined how his system of honor works, or how it matters.
I wouldn't phrase it as honor, but if you believe in a transcendent code of ethics, then that code isn't abrogated by circumstances, though of course individual culpability can be reduced or eliminated. Shooting Mordin in the back is still wrong even if it gives you an extra fleet.
I wouldn't phrase it as honor, but if you believe in a transcendent code of ethics, then that code isn't abrogated by circumstances, though of course individual culpability can be reduced or eliminated. Shooting Mordin in the back is still wrong even if it gives you an extra fleet.
And I disagree. I place values in consequentialism, ethical pragmatism, moral nihilism, and particularism. To a lesser degree, I also value virtue ethics.
I'm not a proponent or fan of deontological ethics.
Yep. It's why 9 out of 10 'heroic' and 'honorable' revolutions fail against their governments. If the regime is totalitarian, not just authoritarian, there's zero chance of an uprising succeeding. It's why the Proletariat have zero chance against the Party. Chaos is order for them. They make sure the people have nothing, and can be nothing.
In most cases revolutions seems to consist of a bunch at least as unpleasant as those they're rebelling against out to settle a score. There don't seem to be very many that have succeeded and put a half-decent alternative.
I wouldn't phrase it as honor, but if you believe in a transcendent code of ethics, then that code isn't abrogated by circumstances, though of course individual culpability can be reduced or eliminated. Shooting Mordin in the back is still wrong even if it gives you an extra fleet.
I could never do it lol. In the playthrough where I do sabotage the genophage, I made sure that the conditions were met that he could be convinced to lay low instead.
In most cases revolutions seems to consist of a bunch at least as unpleasant as those they're rebelling against out to settle a score. There don't seem to be very many that have succeeded and put a half-decent alternative.
Yeah. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Insert image of Neda Agha-Soltan here.Popular uprisings generally succeed only when elements of the state apparatus defect, bringing training and equipment, or decline to be involved.
Retour en haut
