My edition of Animal Farm contains the preface to the edition that was smuggled under the Iron Curtain. In it, Orwell states: "...in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of it's rulers must be excused, if not imitated." Animal Farm is Orwell's means to expose "the Soviet myth". But does this exposure extend to a criticism of the initial revolution? He was a socialist, not a communist, so he wouldn't have blindly followed Marxian predictions for a global uprising of the proles, but surely he would've looked favourably on the Russian Revolution (not what happened beyond that) at least on some level?
Do you know there are four lines of text added into the radio adaptation of Animal Farm to further highlight the turning point? Clover: Do you think that it is quite fair to appropriate the apples? Molly: What, keep all the apples for themselves? Muriel: Aren't we to have any? Cow: I thought they were going to be shared out equally. Although not written by Orwell, they highlight the failure of Soviet Russia, and it's complete betrayal of socialist/communist principles.
Being a socialist in that time was indeed not the normal thing it is now, but I don't think it was equal to blindly agreeing with everything Marx had written. Marx was just some guy with some inspiring theories about how economy and society would(/should?) evolve. The fact that the faulty communism and the socialism were both somewhat influenced by Marx' works doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a connection between them, maybe in abstract theory, but not in reality. Heck, the Soviet Union was not what Marx meant at all if you think about it. Dictators sending huge amounts of civilians to their own death, ignoring the voice of the proletariat and stubbornly trying to conquer half of Europe doesn't seem all that Marxistic to me. O_o
Hmm, true. Even a die hard "socialist" would have to ignore a lot to maintain a positive outlook on the USSR. But my question is this: is Animal Farm anti-revolution? With such a strong critique, it's hard to say that he holds onto a socialist principal of the time, namely that revolution of the proletariat was inevitable and desireable.
It's true that the term 'socialism' corresponded to a quite different ideology on some levels in that time. But a good author should be able to criticise society, with everything that goes with it. Though I don't think that Orwell would write a book that obvious if he was pro-Soviet. Like I said in a way: Soviet Communism and Socialism (even then) are two worlds apart.
It's a huge critiscism! At the end, things are just as bad under Napoleon as under Mr. Jones. Well, no, I suppose you can, but I just think it's a very strong condemnation from a socialist, especially when many of the English intelligentsia of the time were quite pro-Soviet (even to the extent of ignoring Ukrainian famines completely, in order to further support their stance).
Why is the criticism too strong? You can't be a lefty and hate Mao/Stalin? O_o
I want to be able to read it just as a story, but the symbology is too strong. Ideology is always going to effect the tale, and I just think Animal Farm is too strong on critiscism of the Soviet regime for a socialist. Then again, the Soviet Union didn't really have any good aspects...
Just focusing on the pigs, then it is a clear parody of the Soviet regime. Napoleon is clearly Stalin; when animals begin confessing to ludicrous crimes against his rule, they are killed by the dogs. This cannot be anything but the Stalinist purges. Squealer, the pig who can "turn black into white" is a metaphor for Pravda and Soviet propaganda in general. But yeah, I never really thought about it too much, but the two neighbouring farmers, Mr. Pilkington (America/Britain) and Mr. Frederick (Hitler), are quite clear. Mr. Jones is clearly a symbol of capitalism and Tsar Nicholas. The agreement Mr. Frederick makes to buy the windmill, only to pay for it with fake money, is akin to the Nazi-Soviet Pact (1939), which Hitler promptly broke during the war.
That's the thing with Animal Farm, you should read it as just a story, but you know there's far more to it. I guess those references are part of the reading experience too though. Or else it wouldn't be a metaphore.
It does criticise the Soviet approach on communism. The Soviet Union's leaders were one pile of hypocrites. They wanted the proletariat to have power, but they ended up taking all power they initially had away from them. I don't remember which ones, but there are animals referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, the KGB and more of that political crap. ^^ (I think even Churchill is somewhat referred to in a bad way.) I think you should read it as a metaphore for the dictatorship during WW II. It criticises the Soviet Union (which was a disgrace for Marx' work and has, together with Mao, given the word 'communist' an almost infested dimension), and the war in general, I believe.
Orwell's socialism doesn't seem to correlate to what appears to be "blind criticism" of the Soviet Union; I would've thought he would've made it clearer that he supports revolution. Well, that's how I see it anyway. Maybe we should just start a thread about this. Let me know when you're done with 1984, that is one great book. Sorry about the long message haha.
Marx has heaps to do with it! Old Major sat the animals down in the barnyard and said he had a dream that the animals would overturn the leadership of Mr Jones. Isn't this the same as Marx's writings on the inevitable uprising of the proletariat? Orwell's ideology is important in reading Animal Farm. I see it as maintaining a positive attitude toward the revolution, but critiscising the Stalinist (Napoleon) Era. Orwell is said to have come up wih the idea for Animal Farm when he saw two large horses pulling a small boy along a road. He thought; 'If only those horses knew the power they had.' Yes, I see how it can be read as critical to all political leaders, but even this is a purely socialist ideal. If the pigs had remained 'animals' (instead of learning to walk upright, sleeping in beds, and producing alcohol), then there would have been leadership purely BY and FOR the proletariat.
Marx has nothing to do with it. He was not a politician. He was just an intelligent writer And I really don't see how the Soviet Union's communism is related to what some Englishman aspired. I don't think you should consider Orwell's political ideologies when you read Animal Farm. And with 100% criticism I didn't mean it was solely about the Soviet Union. It's mostly about how all political leaders are all the same, dealing weapons, getting into wars. But yeah, the animals are metaphores for guys like Hitler, Stalin and who not. The blind communism they had in the Sovie Union is sincerely criticised. But that has nothing to do with "being a lefty". And 1984 is turning out to be quite exciting.
No further comment on 1984 then haha sorry! Well if he's a socialist of his generation, then he would have expected further uprisings of the proletariat, so thus he would've applauded the original Revolution. But if Animal Farm is a 100% critiscism of the USSR, then he would be critiscising the Revoultion. That's what my brother says. But I think he's not trying to critiscise the original uprising, only the Stalinist era. Oh, and is 'Old Major' Marx or Lenin? If it's Marx (as one would expect), then where the Hell is Lenin?
