Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Absolutely. My brother and I read this as elementary school kids ("ooh! talking animals!") and understood the truths in it without knowing anything prior about political systems. Hmm, I wonder if this is one of the reasons the two of us didn't turn out to be socialists like our parents...?

But I thought the point of the book was to highlight the Russians' idea of communism as a fallacy.

I also think that mostly Orwell

I also think that mostly Orwell wanted to draw a picture of Russian deprived political regime.

I believe like a lot of Orwell's political ideas, this may have been influenced quite a bit by his experiences in the Spanish Civil war. It's been years (no, decades) since I've read Animal Farm, but my memory of it is that the animals are enthusiastic about the revolution. It's what comes after the revolution that is the downer.

In the SCW, (this is Orwell's view) the "revolution" was the initial uprising of the landless peasants, the workers, and the anarchists. However, the Republican forces arrayed against Franco (not only the Government, but the left wing "aid" from Russia) were more concerned with putting down this revolution than with opposing Franco. Thus the revolution is sold out by forces ostensibly on the revolutionaries' side. This isn't quite the slant that is presented in Animal Farm, but it certainly exemplifies the theme of "You never know who your friends are", which we see played out in the novel.

Put simply, my take on the novel follows something I recently read in Christopher Hitchen's Arguably, where he relates Rosa Luxemburg's "warning to Lenin that revolution can move swiftly from the dictatorship of a class to the dictatorship of a party, to be followed by the dictatorship of a committee of that party and eventuality by the rule of a single man who will soon enough dispense with that committee." Animal Farm clearly illustrates some of these steps, if not all of them.

That's interesting! I'd always read it as a straightforward history of Soviet Russia... had no idea about the correspondences with the Spanish Civil War. I must read Homage to Catalonia some time...

When I had to read it for school, I thought it was about the USA, and, in my opinion, you can also find evidences which support this idea.

Now that's a provocative idea :) Okay, so I guess Farmer Jones is George III, but who are Napoleon and Snowball?

Oh, I can’t remember the details, unfortunately. :( The idea behind my feelings is the concept of the so-called "melting pot" and the "Land of the Free" where all people are treated equally and have the same chances according to the "American Dream". Even the Statue of Liberty nurtures this myth thanks to its engraved poem about inviting the poor. You don’t need a magnifying glass to find out how well their "melting pot" works, and back then it had been much worse (segregation, for instance).

Totalitarianism not communism

^ what StevenF said

But don't the characters and events rather directly map on to the history of communist Russia?

Depends on whether you see the Russian example as "communist". Lenin's interpretation of Marxist theory included notions such as forming a vanguard party of the proletariat to lead the revolution - something that Marx or Engels never supported! In fact, at the time, the communists in Germany criticized the Bolshevik Party as banking on people's insecurities to gain political power, with communism as the rallying cry, in a country which is absolutely not ready for communism. I consider the term "authoritarian socialism" as more appropriate for describing the regime in Russia. Also, there hasn't been a single communist country in the world thus far, only different kinds of socialism.

*which was

Oh, if that's what you mean, I probably agree. But the Soviet regime called themselves communist and the name was generally accepted, even if it was incorrect.

Terms are peskily quick at becoming loaded/carrying connotations. It helps to take a step back to the theory every now and then. :)

Not communism, Stalinism. Orwell was sympathetic to the communists.

Amazing how everyone keeps picking me up on my terminology here... see comments higher up the thread.

To make a very inappropriate comparison, it's like trying to convince other people that God doesn't exist because the Church and many "believers" are doing such a terrible job in their lives. Ultimately that's not enough to prove that God doesn't exist. Similarly, you can't really prove that the communism society as envisioned by Marx & Engels would never work, because the activists like Lenin or Mao Zedong all did their own modifications to the Theory, for better or worse.

It is indeed impossible to prove these things, but it's funny how revolutions designed to inaugurate a society based on principles of brotherly love usually end up like this. I think people will be reading Orwell's fable for a long time to come: in some ways, it may even improve once the links to the specific events he is basing it on fade from our memories.

Very true.

To me this book stands as a cautionary tale for the quote unquote successful capitalist nations as well. Always stay vigilant, the systems and constitutions and such weren't perfect to begin with, and if you aren't careful certain forces would usurp the freedoms and civilian powers away, and you won't know what hit you until the hogs are lording over you irrecoverably. The United States prided itself on this and that, yet at the same time the Supreme Court recently passed the ruling that enabled Hobby Lobby's corporations to tamper with the employees' medical care on dubious bases of "religious freedom".

Absolutely. I think it's quite universal: it just tells us something about people, not about any particular political system.

David wrote: "Very true.

To me this book stands as a cautionary tale for the quote unquote successful capitalist nations as well. Always stay vigilant, the systems and constitutions and such weren't perfect to..."

Uhh, Marx and Engels absolutely supported the revolutionary vanguard.

Is Engels a character in the book? Though personally, I would say this is irrelevant...

If you truly thought my comment to be irrelevant, then why did you bother commenting on it?

Just to make the point that it isn't really about detailed correspondences with history. As I keep saying, I think this is a very narrow way to read the book.

When I was taught this book in school the teacher didn't even hint at the allegorical aspects of it; I thought it was great then and still do, but the exact correspondences between characters and historical figures are the least interesting aspect, to me. All it's important lessons are plain without even knowing the allegory exists.

Good grief Robert, are we agreeing for once?!

Manny wrote: "Good grief Robert, are we agreeing for once?!"

Yes. I'm sure it's happened before. I think we're pretty much of one accord about String Theory, for instance.

It's been a pleasure discussing stuff with you, @Manny. :D

@Sammy, does the 1st International count as an early form of a Communist Party? If so then the proletarian vanguard was put into practice many times already back in the 19 th century.

Same here, David!

Robert, I remember thinking about Animal Farm when I read The Cosmic Landscape. Susskind explains the reasoning behind the Landscape and says he can only see two alternatives: string theory or creationism.

As Snowball might have put it, we don't want Farmer Jones back, do we?

Manny wrote: "Same here, David!

Robert, I remember thinking about Animal Farm when I read The Cosmic Landscape. Susskind explains the reasoning behind the Landscape and says he can only see two alternatives: st..."

See? And we both like Candide!

I sometimes wonder why we ever quarrel.

Robert wrote: "When I was taught this book in school the teacher didn't even hint at the allegorical aspects of it..."

While I agree with Manny that applying detailed correspondences with history is too narrow an approach, not even hinting at such things is bizarre. Did you figure it out for yourself at the time, Robert, or only later?

I overheard a conversation about it between two members of a different class who were taught about the allegory.

Manny wrote: "I sometimes wonder why we ever quarrel."

We only ever quarrel because my GAD makes me lose my cool sometimes, for which I apologise.

Absalutly right.I think this book is one of those that no matter how much time will pass it will still be loved and enjoyed.

Valerieferris wrote: "Absalutly right.I think this book is one of those that no matter how much time will pass it will still be loved and enjoyed."

I wonder if most of the 12-year-olds reading it for the time now understand that it was originally written as a satire of the Russian Revolution? But it still seems to be very popular...

This is when an introduction would do a whole lot in front of the text...

Manny wrote: "I wonder if most of the 12-year-olds reading it for the time now understand that it was originally written as a satire of the Russian Revolution? But it still seems to be very popular..."

I wonder how many of those twelve year olds are reading it of their own volition, and how many are reading it for school?

That's a really good question. The latter reason usually produces less-than-desireable results because they didn't do it with the same interest they'd invest in, say, their favorite video games or comic books or other hobbies.

Reading a book for school can go one of two ways: with inspired teaching, some pupils will be introduced to a love of books they would not otherwise have read (I can think of several in my own life), but with poor teaching, and for uninterested pupils who have a great teacher, it can be a total turn off.

The English poet Adrian Mitchell has a preface to one of his collections prohibiting any of the poems being used in test or exams. I'm not sure how enforceable that is, but he was happy for people to read them in school, but not in a context where stress and assessment might put them off.

Adrian Mitchell has just become one of my heroes. I hope more people do this.

Check him out. Not as ranty as the Scouse "ranting poets" who are contemporaries, but quirky, subversive, funny, beautiful.

It's a while since I picked him up, but For Beauty Douglas is one I remember, and there's also Heart on the Left: Poems 1953-1984, which looks quite comprehensive.

One of the amusing ones I always liked was "Ten ways to avoid lending your wheelbarrow", with reasons including "patriotic" and "sinister":

It was so perfect, yes. It made an idea quite capable of being very complex, into an accessible and thoroughly enjoyable classic. This book will live on forever.

Ten thousand years from now, people will say "Aristophanes and Orwell" as generic shorthand for the great early satirists.

I like this Orwell novel almost as much as 1984. This is a great satire of both political correctness and authoritarian populism. ;)

I was thinking of it just the other day, apropos of a certain authoritarian populist leader currently much in the news. His sheep-like followers, who had previously been trained to say "US good, Russia bad" seem to have switched over quite smoothly to "US good, Russia better!"

Oh Manny, you slay me.

Alas, if only Orwell hadn't called it so accurately...