I'd like to point out that contrary to the received, careless, mainstream-media narrative that suggests an "Orwellian" situation is bad, most of Oceania was doing just fine. It certainly wasn't terrific if you were a Party member, but may I remind you all that 85 percent of Oceania were proles?
Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous. No attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus in on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.
How was that so bad, really, for most of Oceania? How, in fact, was that different from most of human existence throughout history? Orwell is actually pretty damned patronizing about those proles--as if it's so distasteful to have a life of physical work, patriotism, caring for a home and children, films, football and beer. Does he really think an infusion of "general ideas" would have improved this situation?
It's time to put our shallow anti-Oceania bias to the side and confront the facts, wouldn't you say?