What does George Orwell's slogan "War is Peace" mean to you?

[ub4me]

Just curious...

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: ub4me
Just curious...

It usually means that I am reading one of Moonbeams posts!

 

[sMiLeYz]

1984

"Big Brother"

 

[RyanM]

I think like much of Orwell's commentary, there's more than one answer, and its up to the reader to decide which they prefer.

The only way to secure peace is through war. Whether defending an attack by an enemy or working to eliminate a threat before it occurs, one can find justification in the hostile actions because it is the only true way to secure peace.

OR

War creates a focus, an enemy, a face to give to a faceless enemy, which can unite a populus and keep peace internally. Without a common enemy, a people may fall apart and begin in-fighting. This has been seen oftentimes throughout history in hundreds of civil wars, including our own.

OR

A little bit of both.

If anyone has any other interesting interpretations, I'd be interested to hear them.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I think like much of Orwell's commentary, there's more than one answer, and its up to the reader to decide which they prefer.

The only way to secure peace is through war. Whether defending an attack by an enemy or working to eliminate a threat before it occurs, one can find justification in the hostile actions because it is the only true way to secure peace.

OR

War creates a focus, an enemy, a face to give to a faceless enemy, which can unite a populus and keep peace internally. Without a common enemy, a people may fall apart and begin in-fighting. This has been seen oftentimes throughout history in hundreds of civil wars, including our own.

OR

A little bit of both.

If anyone has any other interesting interpretations, I'd be interested to hear them.

It definately means the second one to me. If you read the book and put it in context, Orwell is definately talking about uniting people with war. A war that has no face and that is based on propaganda and lies. Pretty foretelling if you ask me.

 

[Looney]

Taken from the book itself:

[...]

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.



"1984," George Orwell, Signet Classic, ISBN: 0451512189, March 1969 reissue, p. 164 (originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1949).

War is Peace

 

[Looney]

Pretty much he means that a permanent war is the same as permanent peace.

 

[kylebisme]

i don't think so, i think it is more that it is believed to be a means to an end; the war on society is seen to maintain peace in the same sense that freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

 

[sandorski]

War is Peace. It was merely the slogan of a perverse ruling class. As I recall, the society in "1984" was sloganistic to the extreme, every slogan was seemingly set in black-and-white terms, but the result(desired) was the acceptance of the "black" as the "white". It was the acceptance of "lies" as "truth", because no matter what was said yesterday, what was said today was "true", though it may be a "lie" tomorrow if the powers that be choose to change it. This is why books and other permament media were considered dangerous, they didn't change to reflect the "truth" of the present.

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski
War is Peace. It was merely the slogan of a perverse ruling class. As I recall, the society in "1984" was sloganistic to the extreme, every slogan was seemingly set in black-and-white terms, but the result(desired) was the acceptance of the "black" as the "white". It was the acceptance of "lies" as "truth", because no matter what was said yesterday, what was said today was "true", though it may be a "lie" tomorrow if the powers that be choose to change it. This is why books and other permament media were considered dangerous, they didn't change to reflect the "truth" of the present.

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

Now quit talking about France like that...

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: sandorski
War is Peace. It was merely the slogan of a perverse ruling class. As I recall, the society in "1984" was sloganistic to the extreme, every slogan was seemingly set in black-and-white terms, but the result(desired) was the acceptance of the "black" as the "white". It was the acceptance of "lies" as "truth", because no matter what was said yesterday, what was said today was "true", though it may be a "lie" tomorrow if the powers that be choose to change it. This is why books and other permament media were considered dangerous, they didn't change to reflect the "truth" of the present.

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

Now quit talking about France like that...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: MachFive
I think like much of Orwell's commentary, there's more than one answer, and its up to the reader to decide which they prefer.

The only way to secure peace is through war. Whether defending an attack by an enemy or working to eliminate a threat before it occurs, one can find justification in the hostile actions because it is the only true way to secure peace.

OR

War creates a focus, an enemy, a face to give to a faceless enemy, which can unite a populus and keep peace internally. Without a common enemy, a people may fall apart and begin in-fighting. This has been seen oftentimes throughout history in hundreds of civil wars, including our own.

OR

A little bit of both.

If anyone has any other interesting interpretations, I'd be interested to hear them.

It definately means the second one to me. If you read the book and put it in context, Orwell is definately talking about uniting people with war. A war that has no face and that is based on propaganda and lies. Pretty foretelling if you ask me.

if that is your opinion on this war, then that should be your opinion on all wars fought by this great country. For every war fought, there have always been conspiracies to explain their true meaning.

 

[apoppin]

"War is Peace" implys that war is "normal" and "good".

"Scholerly" opinion

From MSN . . . Bush's Orwellian case for war.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: sandorski

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

I guess you supported the liberation of Iraq then. It had a corrupt ruling class, a very controlled media and if not accepting a public that could not change the situation.

 

[drewshin]

hey, we've got two out of three. i'm sure the third will not be a problem.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

I guess you supported the liberation of Iraq then. It had a corrupt ruling class, a very controlled media and if not accepting a public that could not change the situation.

Nope.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

I guess you supported the liberation of Iraq then. It had a corrupt ruling class, a very controlled media and if not accepting a public that could not change the situation.

Nope.

Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite then? It met the conditions almost exactly. Why didn't it fall under your pronouncement of "Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed"?

Or does it really meet the exact criteria you cited and the country you thought you were referring to does not meet even one?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

I guess you supported the liberation of Iraq then. It had a corrupt ruling class, a very controlled media and if not accepting a public that could not change the situation.

Nope.

Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite then? It met the conditions almost exactly. Why didn't it fall under your pronouncement of "Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed"?

Or does it really meet the exact criteria you cited and the country you thought you were referring to does not meet even one?

No. It is up to the people to mete out justice. Remember that Iraq didn't attack anyone since Kuwait. The US lead the charge to war and couldn't even settle on an issue to do so.

A wise man once said, "Do not concern yourself with the speck in another's eye, when you have a log in your own." On the International stage one thing is true, that is that the citizens are responsible for their leaders actions. To summarize: 1984's "War is Peace" and other propogandist slogans were an attempt to distract the Domestic populace from the Truth, that being that they were being repressed unjustly. War was merely a shell game to cause the populace to accept Repression as necessary.

 

[etech]

sandorski

Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

So you really didn't mean it? I know, it backfired on you and you have to backpeddle furiously but again, that's ok. I'm used to seeing it.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: etech
sandorski

Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

So you really didn't mean it? I know, it backfired on you and you have to backpeddle furiously but again, that's ok. I'm used to seeing it.

Where do you see the backpeddling. He's not retracting his statements, he's retracting yours. You put your own interpretation on his words, and then call him backpeddling because you were wrong about what he thinks. He has never taken the position that attacking Iraq was right, he also made the statement you quoted. If you can't understand why they're consistent, you simply don't understand what he's saying. If you make more of an effort to understand what he's saying instead of trying to claim false victory, you'd see his consistency.

When I read:

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO

What I get of his position is that any society that would allow themselves to so controlled by it's leaders deserves it's fate. The people have the power to control their destiny. Without the cooperation of the people, no corrupt ruling class can exist. The word destroyed which you take to mean "bombed and invaded by a foreign country, I see as him saying that as saying that a country with those characteristics is already destroyed.

With:

No. It is up to the people to mete out justice. Remember that Iraq didn't attack anyone since Kuwait. The US lead the charge to war and couldn't even settle on an issue to do so.

A wise man once said, "Do not concern yourself with the speck in another's eye, when you have a log in your own." On the International stage one thing is true, that is that the citizens are responsible for their leaders actions. To summarize: 1984's "War is Peace" and other propogandist slogans were an attempt to distract the Domestic populace from the Truth, that being that they were being repressed unjustly. War was merely a shell game to cause the populace to accept Repression as necessary.

I was further able to understand his point which is an elaboration on his initial one. The point was that the people should recognize their state and react to it. His point was not an endorsement of an outside country coming in and taking out the government. The people of a country ultimately decide if their leaders are representative of them, not an outside government which has no place to do so.

If I misunderstand also, Sandorski, please correct me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
sandorski

Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO.

So you really didn't mean it? I know, it backfired on you and you have to backpeddle furiously but again, that's ok. I'm used to seeing it.

Where do you see the backpeddling. He's not retracting his statements, he's retracting yours. You put your own interpretation on his words, and then call him backpeddling because you were wrong about what he thinks. He has never taken the position that attacking Iraq was right, he also made the statement you quoted. If you can't understand why they're consistent, you simply don't understand what he's saying. If you make more of an effort to understand what he's saying instead of trying to claim false victory, you'd see his consistency.

When I read:

I don't know the mind of Orwell, but some have suggested that "1984" is a "Manifesto" of sorts. I have never seen it that way, to me "1984" is a warning of a corrupt ruling class, a controlled media, and an accepting public. Any society that would descend into such a sorry state deserves to be destroyed, IMO

What I get of his position is that any society that would allow themselves to so controlled by it's leaders deserves it's fate. The people have the power to control their destiny. Without the cooperation of the people, no corrupt ruling class can exist. The word destroyed which you take to mean "bombed and invaded by a foreign country, I see as him saying that as saying that a country with those characteristics is already destroyed.

With:

No. It is up to the people to mete out justice. Remember that Iraq didn't attack anyone since Kuwait. The US lead the charge to war and couldn't even settle on an issue to do so.

A wise man once said, "Do not concern yourself with the speck in another's eye, when you have a log in your own." On the International stage one thing is true, that is that the citizens are responsible for their leaders actions. To summarize: 1984's "War is Peace" and other propogandist slogans were an attempt to distract the Domestic populace from the Truth, that being that they were being repressed unjustly. War was merely a shell game to cause the populace to accept Repression as necessary.

I was further able to understand his point which is an elaboration on his initial one. The point was that the people should recognize their state and react to it. His point was not an endorsement of an outside country coming in and taking out the government. The people of a country ultimately decide if their leaders are representative of them, not an outside government which has no place to do so.

If I misunderstand also, Sandorski, please correct me.

Yup. The main character(can't remember his name) began to realize this, but before he was able to fully commit himself to correcting the situation, he was found out and Re-educated.

We are responsible for what our government does on the World stage, we are responsible for our backyard and no one elses. However, if a foreign power unjustly violates the sovereignty of another foreign power, we are justified to come to the aid of an ally or of the nation that has been violated. This has been, more or less, the accepted view amongst civilized nations for some time now. Nations who violate these have always done so with the support(substantial//adequate) of the people, making the people directly responsible for their governments actions(even in a Dictatorship, all power comes from the people). This is why Dictatorships expend so much time and energy on Propoganda, this is why I always get a little antsy when the government of the most powerful Nation on Earth expends so much energy on convincing us(the US and world) on the need to invade Iraq. It probably wouldn't be so bad if they'd have stuck to 1 reason, but it seems they needed a potluck of reasons. That way one simply can choose what sounds good to them and support the war based on that, not an entirely new concept, but dangerous.

Anyway, I'm straying OT.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Anyway, I'm straying OT.

Ahem . . . no one read my link so I'll post the real answer (hint: "War is 'normal' ")

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Check my previous post for MSNBC's "Bush's Orwellian case for war" link.

 

[ub4me]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Yup. The main character(can't remember his name) began to realize this, but before he was able to fully commit himself to correcting the situation, he was found out and Re-educated.

We are responsible for what our government does on the World stage, we are responsible for our backyard and no one elses. However, if a foreign power unjustly violates the sovereignty of another foreign power, we are justified to come to the aid of an ally or of the nation that has been violated. This has been, more or less, the accepted view amongst civilized nations for some time now. Nations who violate these have always done so with the support(substantial//adequate) of the people, making the people directly responsible for their governments actions(even in a Dictatorship, all power comes from the people). This is why Dictatorships expend so much time and energy on Propoganda, this is why I always get a little antsy when the government of the most powerful Nation on Earth expends so much energy on convincing us(the US and world) on the need to invade Iraq. It probably wouldn't be so bad if they'd have stuck to 1 reason, but it seems they needed a potluck of reasons. That way one simply can choose what sounds good to them and support the war based on that, not an entirely new concept, but dangerous.

Anyway, I'm straying OT.

Well said!

 

[PuterDoctor]

I think that War is Peace translates to while there is war it is peace for the upper party members