What Huxley described was existing for millenia already (infant conditioning) as religion and general socialisation, and it is not even always milder than what we seen in BNW. Propaganda machine ubiquity and the information bubbles to to point of targeted selective control are existing right now (for example in Poland, public space is completely, entirely devoid of anything prosocialist). But it is not enough as the material conditions are starting to pierce those bubbles, so that not only information control is needed, but also invigilation and direct repression. Note that both books premise is lack of any organised opposition, especiallly in the BNW, not unlike to the end of history and cultural offensive of the USA hegemony in the last three decades.
Therefore, i think he got it backwards, BNW which is logical effect of liberal extremism is precursor to 1984 fascism - excluding the technology, but things in both BNW and 1984 are not really qualititave changes, just the logical conclusion of what we have now - commodification of family is prerequisite to mass cloning, media bubbles are like the programming, liberalism is (looking at reddit) already having better effects than foetal alcohol poisoning, social mobility is getting smaller and smaller, invigilation is done by algorithms and programs.
I meant specifically his review of 1984, not BNW, which I agree with your assessment of there, it’s more that his review of 1984 is cathartic as even other liberals of the time pointed out the bullshit Orwell slopped onto the page.
What Huxley described was existing for millenia already (infant conditioning) as religion and general socialisation, and it is not even always milder than what we seen in BNW. Propaganda machine ubiquity and the information bubbles to to point of targeted selective control are existing right now (for example in Poland, public space is completely, entirely devoid of anything prosocialist). But it is not enough as the material conditions are starting to pierce those bubbles, so that not only information control is needed, but also invigilation and direct repression. Note that both books premise is lack of any organised opposition, especiallly in the BNW, not unlike to the end of history and cultural offensive of the USA hegemony in the last three decades.
Therefore, i think he got it backwards, BNW which is logical effect of liberal extremism is precursor to 1984 fascism - excluding the technology, but things in both BNW and 1984 are not really qualititave changes, just the logical conclusion of what we have now - commodification of family is prerequisite to mass cloning, media bubbles are like the programming, liberalism is (looking at reddit) already having better effects than foetal alcohol poisoning, social mobility is getting smaller and smaller, invigilation is done by algorithms and programs.
I meant specifically his review of 1984, not BNW, which I agree with your assessment of there, it’s more that his review of 1984 is cathartic as even other liberals of the time pointed out the bullshit Orwell slopped onto the page.
This one?
Huh, I must’ve gotten his mixed up with the Isaac Asimov one. I thought Huxley had a pretty negative opinion of the book as well, but apparently not.
Yeah, Asimov correctly dunked on him pretty hard (though not hard enough), both as futurist and as writer.