As for a start I believe it is difficult to interpret 1984 solely as a mirror of Stalin’s doctrines. Also on totalitarianism in general - although this was written during a Labour government of British State socialism. But Oceania seems to be beyond totalitarianism in the book! Many saw it as an assault on the pretensions and illiberal western let-wing revolutionists/intellectuals - others just as an update of the human condition of all mentioned possible themes (this I were I fall in). It is not an attack on communism nor socialism, it is a attack on many of the gullible and self-serving people within leftism. At the same time I decode it quite satirical, which is where it starts to get scary in comparison to contemporary London - never was it meant to be a prophecy, but on many points it became!

You argue: “Basically the current use of public surveillance has not been forced upon us, but has been made possible through public demand. This is a real difference from the Orwellian surveillance society as I see it. Our system of popular control through surveillance is not about fear from the surveyors, but fear from the perceived enemy that the surveyors are protecting us from.”

You are correct that the CCTV in London was installed by public request. And I see a difference between the public and the private surveillance - beneficial wise. However, few problems with CCTV that I would like to allude to:
1) CCTV is still not proven to deter crime (A 2008 Report by UK Police chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were resolved by surveillance)
2) One of its problems is how it is argued that t its displace crime, not reduce it.
3) CameraWatch (that sille company with the dog stickers) claimed that the majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are operated illegally or are in breach of privacy guidelines.

It helps solve some criminal issues, that much I believe. But at the same time I think Richard Thomas (Information commissioner - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/01/freedomofinformation.idcards) was right in warning people in Britain that they were “sleepwalking into a surveillance society”. The whole notion of surveillance and self-regulation is very much appropriate, and with direct control through the new ‘talking cctv’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6492925.stm), Orwell’s and Foucault’s scary examples are very much relevant.

-Chris

Our current system doesn’t allow for direct control of thought and public opinion through force, instead it relies on slightly more sophisticated approaches than the rather crude Big Brother approach. Basically the current use of public surveillance has not been forced upon us, but has been made possible through public demand. This is a real difference from the Orwellian surveillance society as I see it. Our system of popular control through surveillance is not about fear from the surveyors, but fear from the perceived enemy that the surveyors are protecting us from.

The state has every interest in wanting to control the huge and wild beast that is the general population. Since you can’t control the beast through force, you must ensure that the beast votes in favor of whatever you propose. You have to “manufacture consent” to borrow a title from Chomskys book on this subject. The ways of doing this is quite obvious, or should be at this point. Cry out about criminality on the streets, rape and murder enough times and the public will go along with surveillance plans on the basis of security. Manufacture a threat so eminent and so full of horror and hatred so that we all think that we might die from a bomb tomorrow, and you can basically dismantle all rights of personal freedom and human rights, without a peep from the public.
And I think as soon as the system (e.g. surveillance en masse) is in place, it feeds back into itself and has a dual effect. Firstly it’s a very concrete weapon of control. Secondly it ensures to constantly feed fear into the people around it. Surveillance ensures you that, since it’s there and there must be a reason for it, the threat is just around the corner. Then you have a scared population, willing to follow your lead.

As to wether Neo-Liberalism is good for anything… Take the current financial crisis as an example of the failure of those so called neo-liberal ideas. We could probably pin down the exact moment when things started to flow completely off the radar, around the 1971 and then during the following decade in the politics instituted during the Reagan administrations trailblazing through established models of commerce and financial politics (not to mention the crusades through the Southern Americas, middle east etc.). The period up until this -counting from the post ww2 establishment of a global (within the capitalist western societies at least) system of financial management -The so called Bretton Woods system. Roughly outlined, the systems’ main feature was an obligation for all 44 allied countries to adopt a similar monetary policy, and maintain a fixed value on each country’s exchange rate of currency.

The system which lasted until 1971 where it was (in typical fashion) disregarded by U.S. Policy, marked the golden age of capitalism and via the individual states’ direct involvement and direction over their financial and infrastructural institutions, helped bringing in the ideas of the welfare state amongst many other things. In effect a slightly more centered (maybe even left) oriented form of capitalism marked these decades.
It’s also well to remember here, that these were the years that brought about such things as better public healthcare, peace and rights movements and a better feeling of participatory democracy.

What was instituted as the de-facto system of beliefs following the breakdown of this system is exactly what we term as neo-liberalists ideas. In effect these are based around free-trade and privatizing and a turning point. This really kicked in and became evident during the Reagan and Bush 1 & 2 years of course. In any case, basically instituting what Chomsky refers to as “[the sytem that] .. economists call a ‘virtual parliament’ of investors and lenders who actually vote”. Vote in the sense that if politics doesn’t conform to the needs of business, business has the economic power to hurt the state (e.g. moving production elsewhere etc.).
This is the system that has now brought upon the eminent ‘crisis’ of the financial market -in it’s course it has successfully dismantled every notion of the welfare state and any remnants of socialist ideas (if there ever really were any -not taking the general population into consideration).

What’s happening now, is that even mainstream media organizations are crying out for “The end of neo-liberalism”, and the failure of capitalism. I would love this to be the case, but as I see it, the current event was a complete foreseeable, even expectable, outcome when you consider the motivations (mainly take the money and run) of business and state throughout the last 30-40 years.
Hopefully the xxx Bn “bailout” provided via further taxation of those who’s been left out in the cold -the general population again, will prove to make a difference. Most likely I think it won’t. Yesterday’s NY Times, in itself a media weapon based on those exact neo-liberals ideologies, ran an article critiquing the way that those money had been spent so far -mainly the large pillar institutions has taken them, and done what everyone else would do. Keeping them to themselves. Today there is a headline
Bad times, has one good side effect often, the rise of popular struggle and unionized power in hands of the population. Hopefully this will spark thoughts again. A main obstacle as I see it, is that through the shifting of power from state to commerce, it will be difficult to get back to a capitalist status quo. -Thomas

1) To compete in womens gymnastics you have to be 16 or older; earlier tournaments have listed three of China’s six gymnastic girls as currently being under 16 - and as young as 14. The issue is that the younger - and thereby smaller and lighter - that you are, the easier it is to do tricks. Mysteriosly these tournament documents are not to be found online anymore, and the girls all have recently issued passports stating their age to be 16. The Chinese team went on to win womens gymnastics.

2) Many Chinese athletes have been on a “mysterious” and closed State-run training camp for years before the Games. Reports are circulating that many have been systematically doped and given performance enhancing drugs in this training camp. Could this be part of the reason for China’s dominance in sports, where strength is of utmost importance? Funny that China so far has won 7 gold medals in weightlifting to take just one example. 7 out of 10 weightlifting disciplines.

Maybe this is just the West’ way of being a sore loser? Could be. Or maybe China just really wants to win the medal race - at all costs.

As the above is based both on facts, rumors and speculation, I think it is too early to pass judgment on these issues. And we probably will never know for sure what has happened. But let me put it like this: If there was a fair play competition in the Games, I think China would be dead-last…

The issue with the two girls is in itself not more harmful than the problem of how to explain and comfort the ‘ugly girl’ / crooked-teeth-girl.
- Another complex though, is of course that all seven-year-old girls should be seen as little princesses…

Regarding the death penalty… Did you read the part of the linked USA Today article citing a death-penalty researcher from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences? If not, what makes it more appalling and grisly is that the majority are still killed by gunshot…!