1984, the dreaded year of George Orwell, finally arrived, in 1989. But Orwell's prediction came out completely backwards. It was the nightmare he said it would be, but not for democracy. It was a nightmare for totalitarianism. His logic was almost right, but it had a flaw, and that single flaw proved crucial.

Orwell's novel "1984" contained the foremost prophecy of the cold war era, the message that Stalinism was unstoppable, and all individual liberty would be lost. The year 1984 became a symbol of future anxiety, and many feared its arrival with the same dread that people of the dark ages felt as they approached the end of the first millennium, when the world was predicted to end.

When the literal year 1984 finally came, it arrived with a whimper. Nevertheless it spawned numerous essays, most of them arguing either that (a) the dreaded era had actually come, if only we looked closely, or (b) it was still imminent, and just you wait. But in fact the totalitarianism envisioned by Orwell never made it. It spread over much of the world, and then, like the Martians in The War of the Worlds, seemed to begin to die of a mysterious disease. Indeed, in the period 1989-1991 we watched democracy and liberty spread (like a plague -- to Communists) first through the Soviet satellites, and then into the heart of the Soviet Union itself.

What happened? How could Orwell have been so wrong? What is the disease that infected totalitarianism? The answer is simple. Ever since Mary Shelley created the Frankenstein monster, futurists have worried that the growing avalanche of science and technology would overwhelm all attempts to control it. Orwell accepted this concept, and he was correct in doing so. But Orwell prophesized that technology would be used by the state to suppress individual liberty. Communications would spread propaganda, the "Big Lie," and electronics would be used for surveillance and thought control. Technology would be used by the state to enslave us. He had experienced loudspeakers and radio spreading the evil eloquence of Hitler to millions of Germans, to far more than could have been reached by human energy alone. In 1948 he saw Stalin use technology to assume god-like status in the Soviet Union. (Orwell's book was written in 1948; he reversed the last two digits to create his title.). As technology advanced, it seemed that so too would the possibilities to suppress freedom.

But Orwell was wrong. Technology has proven to be the most liberating force in history. Rather than being controlled by the state, as Orwell imagined, technology has been uncontrollable. It is the Frankenstein monster, but it kills only tyrants; it is benevolent to the people, for it gives them access to information. The Big Lie only works if the other side remains unheard. Short wave radios provide news, and the news rings true. It proved to be much more expensive and difficult for the communists to jam radio broadcasts than for the Radio Free Europe to set up new ones at difference frequencies. Short-wave radios shrank in size and in cost. Information leaked, and then poured, into eastern Europe. The people learned that their "worker's paradise" was far inferior to the capitalist world outside, and that the difference was growing.

As technology advanced, so did its liberating effects. The revolutions were allowed by Gorbachev, but they were inevitable. The technology of liberation in China was the fax machine, which sent images of foreign newspaper accounts throughout the country; the government just barely, and perhaps only temporarily, won the battle. Because of its size and isolation, China has resisted, but it cannot resist forever. Technology is necessary just to compete in the world markets, and the fax and internet is slowly but surely informing the Chinese. When Gorbachev was isolated, and his phones cut off, he did what most of his fellow citizens did -- he learned what was happening from the BBC and the Voice of America. The Emergency Committee that led the coup did not completely cut off outside communications. This was widely reported as a mistake, or perhaps as a weakness of will, but in fact they could not have cut off all communications even if had they tried. The proliferation of communication channels, including radio, satellite feeds and fiber-optics links, had progressed too far. Most Russians had access short-wave radios. Photocopy machines, recently introduced in great numbers throughout Moscow, proved to be the new underground printing press, and allowed the pleas and speeches of Boris Yeltsin to be spread throughout the city. Camcorders are sufficiently abundant that one seems to be on the scene of virtually every incident, capturing the details to be spread over satellite links for the world to watch a few hours, or a few minutes, later. Gorbachev himself made a video tape to contradict the lie of his illness. To the gang of eight, the technology of liberation was a monster that they could not control.

Orwell's error was remarkably simple and easily identifiable: he assumed that advanced technology would always be expensive, and therefore affordable only to the state. It was an assumption shared by virtually every prophet and science-fiction writer, but it has proven to be wrong. A surprisingly large fraction of high technology has become cheap. As late as the 1970s, the driving force for electronic technology was the military; now the military has difficulty getting the electronics industry to pay attention to their needs, since they are small compared to the consumer market. Radios have become so inexpensive that they are stuck on the face of CD players, almost as an afterthought. The cheapness of the photocopy machine has made it an alternative to the printing-press. Most of us cannot even count the number of computers we own, because we don't know how many are hidden in our microwave ovens and our automobiles. But it is the technology of information and communications that has really made tyranny unworkable, and may soon make it obsolete. This is the true technology of liberation.

To be sure, technology has introduced problems. Like anything else that is out of control, it does not always lead us where we want to go. But at a time that technology is frequently under attack, it is worthwhile to think about its role in spreading truth. It has proven to be too cheap to be directed by governments. It was not Stalinism, but the spread of information that proved to be unstoppable. If, in fact, democracy does explode across the world, let us not forget to notice this contributing force.