La carta que inspiro 1984

La carta que inspiró “1984”

La Segunda Guerra Mundial no sólo dio origen a cambios políticos, geográficos y sociales. También surgieron movimientos artísticos, nuevas formas de expresión, libros, películas, teorías. Es durante este evento histórico que George Orwell tuvo la idea de escribir su más famoso libro: 1984, en el que describe una distopía totalitaria, reprimida y vigilada todo el tiempo.

A pesar de que Orwell leyó meses antes  de comenzar 1984 un libro ruso llamado Nosotros, del autor Yevgeni Zamiatin, el que contiene ciertas similitudes con su mundo futurista, en una carta dirigida a Noel Willmet expresa las ideas que tiene acerca del futuro de la sociedad con el inminente fin de la guerra, muchas de las cuales se encuentran en la última novela que el autor escribió.

orwell 1984
George Orwell explica en su carta que, gane quien gane, cree que la sociedad se acerca a un régimen totalitario, pues los intelectuales de su época se muestran poco tolerantes ante nuevas ideas; explica que la economía, lejos de buscar el bien común, hace que las personas, debido a su condición, entren en una “casta” en la que gozan o son privados de privilegios. 

Uno de los grandes momentos de la obra de Orwell es la teoría de que el “Gran hermano” puede manipular la historia y, aún más que eso, puede decir que dos más dos es igual a cinco, o a tres, o puede ser tres, cuatro y cinco a la vez. En esta carta Orwell usa el mismo ejemplo para referirse a los Súper-Estados en los que, él temía, la gente podría vivir en un futuro cercano.

orwell2 (1)

El libro George Orwell: Life in letters, en el que se presentó dicha carta, supone que esta misiva es indispensable para entender la mentalidad del escritor, sus teorías ante una sociedad destruida y un futuro al que mucha gente cree que los órganos de política y seguridad están entrando.

Estas son algunas de las teorías que Orwell desarrolla en su carta, también puedes leer el texto íntegro.

“Me temo que, desgraciadamente, el totalitarismo está creciendo en el mundo. Hitler pronto desaparecerá, pero sólo a costa de fortalecer a: a) Stalin b) los millonarios americanos e ingleses y c) todo tipo de pequeños ‘fuhrers’ al estilo de De Gaulle.

La mayor parte de la élite intelectual inglesa se opone a Hitler, pero sólo a cambio de apoyar a Stalin. La mayoría de ellos apoyan métodos dictatoriales, policías secretas y la sistemática falsificación de la historia, siempre que beneficie a los nuestros.

Pero si uno proclama que ‘todo es por una buena causa’ y no reconoce los síntomas siniestros, en realidad sólo  fortalece al totalitarismo”.

To Noel Willmett

18 may, 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6

Dear Mr Willmett:

Many thanks for your letter. You ask whether totalitarianism, leader-worship etc. are really on the up-grade and instance the fact that they are not apparently growing in this country and the USA.

I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle. All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as I explained in my book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope  they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Japanese imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism.

Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell




Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s