Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

newworker.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 186 posts

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#21

Post by nl »

TMWNN wrote: post #6
tomhow wrote: post #2

Previously... Isaac Asimov's Review of “1984” (1980) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26390752 - March 2021 (6 comments) Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164679 - Oct 2018 (8 comments)

[flagged]

I don't understand what this comment is trying to say.

The commentator mannykannot didn't really comment on the politics other than to agree that 1984 is a criticism of Stalism (which... I don't think anyone would argue with?).

Orwell also wrote "Animal Farm" which is a criticism of Fascism, and Asimov leads with this.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#22

Post by just-the-wrk »

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #13

>Orwell's mistake lay in thinking there had to be actual war to keep the merry-go-round of the balance of power in being. In fact, in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being. (This sounds like a very Leftist…

Or the wealth could accumulate in the hands of a few

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#23

Post by decimalenough »

TMWNN wrote: post #12
pavlov wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And North Korea maintains a system of neighborhood surveillance, mandatory self-criticism sessions, and hereditary social classes which are perhaps closer to “1984” because they are so well established now. When it collapsed, East Germany was still led by the same people who had created it. The Berlin Wall only existed for 28 years. North Korea is a multi-generational prison.

> When it collapsed, East Germany was still led by the same people who had created it. The Berlin Wall only existed for 28 years. North Korea is a multi-generational prison. Excellent point. Something that refutes another of Asimov's critiques in his review, that tyrannies inevitably end through tyrants' deaths, or at least become milder in their oppression. Admittedly he wrote the review in 1980, back when a) the fi…

North Korea is rather exceptional though. Few dictatorships manage even one smooth succession, let alone two.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#24

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #13

>Orwell's mistake lay in thinking there had to be actual war to keep the merry-go-round of the balance of power in being. In fact, in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being. (This sounds like a very Leftist…

The perpetual war is just a framework for Orwell's autocrats needing to direct the anger of the populace away from themselves. We have this today with government propaganda stirring up renewed hatred of brown people to deflect from their ineptitude. Conveniently blowing up in their faces when it turns out to be much easier to hate pedophile protectors.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#26

Post by tokai »

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #13

>Orwell's mistake lay in thinking there had to be actual war to keep the merry-go-round of the balance of power in being. In fact, in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being. (This sounds like a very Leftist…

Isn't Asimov mistaking the Party's self rationalization and use of war (that might not even still be going on) as a statement of Orwell beliefs?

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#27

Post by slidehero »

kergonath wrote: post #14

I have a lot of respect for Asimov, but he is more than a bit myopic here. He absolutely wants 1984 to be anti-Stalinist and he misses the fact that all dictatorships use the same playbook, and that there is nothing intrinsically Stalinist in the tools and methods used by Ingsoc. Far-right fascist wannabes are doing exactly the same thing right now. Amusingly, when he writes > Furthermore, he has a system of voluntee…

Asimov comes across as jealous of Orwell's unmatched contribution to not only literature but also culture. Asimov never came close to having the same impact, maybe that irked him.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#28

Post by hvs »

nl wrote: post #21
TMWNN wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't understand what this comment is trying to say. The commentator mannykannot didn't really comment on the politics other than to agree that 1984 is a criticism of Stalism (which... I don't think anyone would argue with?). Orwell also wrote "Animal Farm" which is a criticism of Fascism, and Asimov leads with this.

"Animal Farm" is a satire of the Russian Revolution.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#29

Post by riazrizvi »

hleszek wrote: post #8

This is still so relevant now: > This Orwellian preoccupation with the minutiae of 'historical proof' is typical of the political sectarian who is always quoting what has been said and done in the past to prove a point to someone on the other side who is always quoting something to the opposite effect that has been said and done. As any politician knows, no evidence of any kind is ever required. It is only necessary…

Relevant because it's universal human nature, to only have domain over a narrow context in life, and assert what's good/bad based on that limited view with others who occupy a different one. We use justifications which make sense to us that others rightly disagree with. It's not left politics, it's not right politics, it's not just politics, it's everything. Anyone who asserts they are beyond it are full of it.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#30

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

hleszek wrote: post #8

This is still so relevant now: > This Orwellian preoccupation with the minutiae of 'historical proof' is typical of the political sectarian who is always quoting what has been said and done in the past to prove a point to someone on the other side who is always quoting something to the opposite effect that has been said and done. As any politician knows, no evidence of any kind is ever required. It is only necessary…

No more relevant today than it was 5 or 10 or 20 years ago tbh
Post reply on HN