War Is PeaceEssay Preview: War Is PeaceReport this essayChapter 3: War is PeaceWinston reads Chapter 3, War is Peace before he reads the first chapter. Chapter 3 explains the full meaning of the Party slogan after which it is named. The author reviews how the three superstates of the world came into being: The United States absorbed the British Empire to form Oceania, Russia absorbed Europe to form Eurasia, and “after a decade of confused fighting” Eastasia emerged as the third superstate; it comprises China, Japan and some other adjacent areas. In various combinations, these superstates have been at war for twenty-five years (no concrete years are mentioned, but since the present is supposed to be 1984, the implication is that the war began at the end of the fifties — and to make room for the “decade of confused fighting”, Oceania and Eurasia must have come into being virtually immediately after Orwell published his novel in 1949).
The never-ending war between the superstates is seemingly pointless — “it is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference”. (As this chapter of The Book reveals, all three superstates are based on very much the same totalitarian ideology as Big Brothers Oceania.) However, the Party and its counterparts in the rival superstates have excellent reasons to keep the war going.
Again, the author reviews the (non-fictional) history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, how the use of machines in production raised “the living standards of the average human being very greatly”. It was “clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappearedhunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations”. However, since the Party wants to maintain a hierarchical society with itself on top, this real possibility of eliminating poverty and inequality is a deadly threat rather than something to be desired: “If leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves” — eventually sweeping away the oligarchy ruling them. “In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
Since large-scale machine production could not be eliminated once invented, the Party must see to it that the products are destroyed before they can make “the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent”. A permanent state of war takes care of this problem: resources are deliberately wasted on warfare, and the war effort “is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population… It is a deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.”
Moreover, the state of war creates a mentality that suits the Party well. A Party member should be “a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war.” Though “the entire war is spurious…and waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones”, even Inner Party members who potentially could know better passionately believe that the war is real and will “end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world”. Research into new weapons therefore continues — but using doublethink,
․, which is a matter of public fact when the war is declared or is underway, becomes an essential aspect of the political economy‥. The goal of the Party’s propaganda is, therefore, no less an economic motive than that of the Oceania Communist Party. When the war goes on, and if the party’s economy can be maintained on an absolutely sound basis then such a situation could be in fact developed which will ensure that it is not subject to criticism, repression or even assassination. This is one reason why the Party uses self-censoring propaganda, which has nothing to do with the state of war but simply with the aim of creating conditions which may be necessary for war to begin. Such propaganda must be of the highest and strongest order. It must be true to the people on the battlefield, which they are always so ready, that this war needs not an actual clash of forces but the will, the strength and the courage and endurance the Party can muster to end the occupation and, if necessary, its triumph. As long as the Oceania Communist Party is able to wage such a war it must do so within its own limitations, and, indeed, of its own will. It must fight without any effort; and the Party leadership must always be confident that it will be unable to achieve such a victory if it can’t find the necessary tactics:…, to maintain the neutrality of the world. This will be achieved via the use of disinformation; propaganda; the use of propaganda; the use of disinformation; all of it, and so on, until, in order to achieve this goal, the Party must use any means capable of spreading propaganda against Oceania, including the political and economic fronts in which the Party stands, or of advancing it. Any further effort by the Party to spread propaganda would be futile and counterproductive. This will also be accomplished even if the Party pursues a more or less benign policy: the Party might do nothing to prevent anything; and, when the party achieves all its aims, only this will become possible. Any such policies would be counterproductive and counterproductive because they may endanger the Party’s position: if it can’t make up its mind and the people’s consciousness, if the Party doesn’t believe in that which the people actually want, and if the Party believes in its position and its ideas, then nobody can say anything about it. In other words, the Party’s leadership and the leadership of some other government or a foreign authority or a foreign body can become a factor to determine whether or not a conflict or a victory is sought. This gives a clear indication of how