Whole story is based on middle class perspective that is a tiny minority so the whole critique loses all meaning

t. Didn't read a book

It really is a shitty novel, but for more reasons than its very limited scope.

How did proles stabbed party members?

isn't this just a story about how truth is malleable?

No, the proles are useful idiots to the middle class in that they will fight in the revolution that will hand power from the upper class to the middle class.

It is anti-revolution though. It's a very cynical view to take of revolution - the proletariat get fucked no matter what.

the party of every communist country is literally led by the largest peasant arlords enslavingt he middle class

pay more attention in history. the middle class is not oppressing you. proles are dumb and violent, you fag, and led by the dumbest and most violent. that is NOT the fault of the middle class

Read the book retard

"middle class" is by definition the majority of the population

I did. you seem to have forgotten. the proles are dumb and violent in the book, and the constant revolution is driven BY the fact they are tirelessly bloodthirsty

In the book they are only 13% of population

then they aren't the "middle class" author might have confused them with "working" class.

>they were just kept content with porn, and shitty novels (just like now) they didn't had telescreens in their homes. They didn't had any reason to rebel

This is true and it shows that 1984 is not the polar opposite of BRave New World that people always claim it is. In 1984 the proles are controlled mostly through pleasure.

No you fuckwit. If for instance a feudal society consists of a large amount of serfs, (80-90%) a few lords and barons who own the land of the serfs, and the rest being free farmers who own their own land, the ~10% in the last category is the middle class, despite being severly outnumbered by the serfs.

that is literally NOT the only definition you idiot

"poor"/lower class = having less than the average person
>"rich"/upper class = having more than the average person
>middle class = your average person

I have the book right in front of me. From Goldstein's book:

>The aim of the high is to remain where they are. The aim of the middle is to change places with the high. The aim of the low, when they have an aim - for it is an abiding characteristic of the low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives - is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the high

the middle are taken from the lo. read the book more carefully. the protag is an effete nice guy. the people that rise above him are routinely bloodthirsty and socially adept savages that are most adept at engaging idiot sentiments to revel n violence.

take the (three?) minute hate, guided by bureaucrats that are inherently taken from poor, violent people. the middle happens to be the most violent, most motivated of the poor.

if this isnt already obvious to you, the classically "high" e.g. aristocrats have LONG BEFORE been completely killed off.

the author, you idiot, fought in the fucking communist civl ar in spain. he understood first hand that the only people that made it to the middle in the communist system had been those most strongly motivated by violence, that then could lead armed mobs by that same fucking "virtue"

and if it isnt completely clear to your dumb ass at this point, look at the real fucking history of the chinese/russian revolution. the aristocracy got almost immediately killed by armed mobs. the leaders of those mobs then became them iddle, and the strongest generals among them becamet he high

if you blame the middle or high classes for communism you're a fucking retard. their high class is composed of leaders of street gangs, often illiterate

fucking kill yourself

No you fucking retard holy shit just neck yourself.

First of all, your average person might not be the majority. If you have hundred people, around half of them earning around 150 x each year, the other half earning 50 x, and three people earning 100 x, then the middle class would by your definition consist of three people, not the at all the majority.
Second of all, nobody uses that metric, because it is fucking useless. Even the most liberal economists would use something like middle class = those that earn the MEDIAN (not average) income, +/-50%.
Third of all, it is useless to define class out of income level, all you have done is describing income level groups using your predetermined methods, class is determined by a persons relation to the productive process.

>the people that rise above him
There is not a single character 1984 that changes classes. The Goldstein book vaguely references that higher classes can draw upon lower classes, but that's because The Party kills a lot of people and needs to replace them.

>guided by bureaucrats that are inherently taken from poor, violent people
It never says anything about bureaucrats coming from the poor.

>he understood first hand that the only people that made it to the middle in the communist system had been those most strongly motivated by violence
I don't doubt that this is true IRL. But I'm talking about 1984 by George Orwell, which takes place in a fictional universe.

>if you blame the middle or high classes for communism you're a fucking retard
I'm not talking about communism IRL. Nor is anybody except you

Either you didn't read the book, or it's been a very long time since you read it and you're confusing the fictional history of Oceania with real history of actual communist regimes.

You're all missing the point, the only thing that matters is that smile of big brothers is the same smile as the one described at the end of Siddhartha

you cannot separate 1984 from real communism if you are discussing 1984, everything in it is based on his interactions in real communist systems

the poor are dumb nd violent and they doom themselves

stupid idiot reads a quarter of a book and fails to properly articulate his dumb opinions

Have you been laying on the ocean floor and digesting your own brain?

Can someone from Ex-Yugoslavia country confirm that this book is implemented in the (middle/high) school curriculum as a reading assignment?
I'm from Macedonia and it still isn't over here.

So you’re saying you haven’t read the book?

The book explicitly schematizes society as a very small ‘Inner Party’, the larger ‘Outer Party’ (which is the 13%), and then allll the Proles who are just the idiot unwashed masses and make up everybody else. Prole is clearly referring to Proletariat, or working class.

The middle class is the outer party, people who aren’t proles, but aren’t inner party.