> But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
If you have machines over to which you can turn your thinking, why would you still need to enslave other humans?
If you have machines over to which you can turn your thinking, why would you still need to enslave other humans?
1984
What's problematic is that it focuses on one interpretation of power at the exclusion of others and leads one to believe (at a young, impressionable age) that it is a canonical account.
The above statements are true in a way, but governments are also established to provide order, and have done so very successfully in general. The book is obviously a response to European nationalism, but we mustn't forget that nationalist dictatorships arise, with deep public support, from specific conditions. Instead of the constant "never again" and automatic insistence on the precise values of the post-war European welfare state, we should leave space for new political thinking, of which some components may appear to be heresy.
Obviously thinking here of anti-state-surveillance – Snowden has apparently read one book in his life: 1984 – but here the "power [...] is an end" meme, presented without any nuance, appears to make sense in this context, but only highlights one side of the matter in a way that distorts the issue.
Yes, power may be abused. It's good to have safeguards.
Who among us doesn't want to make the works a better place? Who among us doesn't have our own personal view of what a better place would look like, which might not be exactly in line with someone else's view? Congratulations, there's your dictatorial urge right there.
Most of the worst people in history, from Hitler to Marx to Pot to ISIS were all motivated by the desire to make the world a better place. Ascribing bad outcomes to bad intentions is a classic mistake.