4 ms·

One of the strangest things about that text is that very few of the folks I've talked to about it seem to feel that the issue with the pigs at the end is that t

One of the strangest things about that text is that very few of the folks I've talked to about it seem to feel that the issue with the pigs at the end is that there is a farmer. That is to say, I very rarely find anyone who will agree that the book is anti-capitalist at teh same time that it's opposed to Stalinism. I see the book continually taken happily anti-communist text. But the text is certainly not _just_ about the Soviet system under Stalin. Over the years, the big impact of Orwell to me has been how readily people can look at systems that they consider to be Other than their own and critique them while eagerly ignoring the implications for their own situation. That is, everyone here thinks the sheep are dumb, but at least they went through a period of time where they tried to replace the farmer with a different pig... where I live in Texas, all the sheep just think they are the farmer.

scrumper 8y ago
I agree with you I think. I took it as more an anti-authoritarian story than purely anti-capitalist or anti-communist. The anti-capitalist parts are fairly self-evident, at least to me: that's the rather brutal system the farmer has imposed on the animals at the start. Booting the farmer out and starting again with the animal-owned collective sets the story up for the real message, which is that power corrupts and it is very easy for anyone attracted to power to co-opt legitimate grievance for their own ends. The return of the farmer brings a nice circularity to the story as well as giving the idea that the imposition of will on others is usually to their detriment. Capitalism or communism are basically indistinguishable to everyone existing without power or influence.
- TopHand 8y ago
  It is an allegory of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The farmer represents the Tsarist autocracy. In a Tsarist autocracy all power and wealth is controlled by the Tsar (Farmer Jones). This is actually a long way from capitalism. In the end the pigs form what is referred to as an oligarchy.
  - misterdoubt 8y ago
    It is more than that, however, both in authorial intent and without it.
maxxxxx 8y ago
To me it’s a warning that when you rightfully overthrow an authoritarian you have to be careful not to trade that authoritarian against another one. This seems to happen all the time. Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia and probably many more.
- O_H_E 8y ago
  And Egypt 2011
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    That episode just proves that Egypt's masters in the West don't really value democracy as much as they constantly claim to value it.
  - fdsak 8y ago
    And West ! failed to accept real democracy when they saw that real democracy is very dangerous and unacceptable and not aligned with their interests.
    - gyaniv 8y ago
      There was never any real democracy there. It just changed from dictatorship to dictatorship to dictatorship.
      - O_H_E 8y ago
        I think you are talking about Egypt and @fdsak was talking about US & Europe
- aasasd 8y ago
  Russians have basically given up after riding this merry-go-round for the past almost two centuries.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
So many people seem to want to name-check Orwell for anti-communist purposes without recognizing that the man himself fought for a revolutionary socialist militia in the Spanish Civil War. In other words, he put his actual life on the line for communism (in the non-Stalinist form he interpreted it as), and actually ultimately probably died from complications related to injuries he sustained in that conflict.
- tennisballboy5 8y ago
  Wow
- cturner 8y ago
  His writing changed after Spain. He saw the deliberate press distortions, and the Soviets installing listening equipment in the telephone exchanges. If anything, this gives him greater credibility. This is a review he wrote of /We/, which I dug up while thinking about your comment. http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/zamyatin/english/e_zamy http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/zamyatin/english/e_zamy
  - cmrdporcupine 8y ago
    Nothing there in that review is inconsistent with the anti-Stalinist but revolutionary socialist views of the POUM militia he fought with in Spain. Now, arguably "Emmanuel Goldstein" in 1984 is meant to be a kind of Trotsky figure (and his book within 1984), and the fact that Goldstein and his book are ultimately shown to be fake and created by the Party may be a kind of critique or renunciation of Trotskyism and similar currents. Hard to say.
aasasd 8y ago
Yeah, the thing that one should know about Orwell is that he was a socialist. Just a couple of quotes from Wikipedia: > He wrote to Cyril Connolly from Barcelona on 8 June 1937: "I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before." > In Part 2 of The Road to Wigan Pier, published by the Left Book Club, Orwell stated that "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown." Orwell stated in "Why I Write" (1946): "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." > According to biographer John Newsinger: "The other crucial dimension to Orwell's socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist – indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever." After all of this, it's hilarious when people continue to argue, without support, that the ‘not-anti-communist’ interpretation is mistaken.
- aasasd 8y ago
  Btw, I enjoyed watching the score on the above comment jump up and down. Apparently a bunch of people get irritated when their ideological hero gets called a dirty commie using the man's own words.
pathseeker 8y ago
>Over the years, the big impact of Orwell to me has been how readily people can look at systems that they consider to be Other than their own and critique them while eagerly ignoring the implications for their own situation. "Capitalism is terrible" is a pretty constant meme on the left in US politics right now, perpetuated by many people who have read that book. >where I live in Texas, all the sheep just think they are the farmer. Ah the classic "people that don't vote to tax the rich for entitlements think they are rich". If your model of how people vote depends on people being completely stupid, it's wrong.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Animal Farm can really be read as Orwell's retelling of Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed"
ckarmann 8y ago
For me one of the weirdest use of this book was a vegan (and animal rights supporter) friend who copy/pasted on Facebook the speech of Old Major, the eldest pig who incite the Revolution, who was explaining to the animals how bad the farmer was treating them. For her it was perfectly expressing her feeling that farming animals was a monstrosity and she was completely ignoring that the speech was designed by the pig to manipulate the listeners (the other animals) and that it was a metaphor of communism. So for her, the issue was indeed the farmer, not as symbol of capitalism, but simply as a farmer exploiting living beings. All symbolism was evacuated and all that remained was a rousing speech for animal rights. I suppose all book interpretation eventually shows the ideology of the reader. It doesn't even have to respect the presumed intention of Orwell who, from what I know, never expressed any support for veganism or actual animal rights.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion of "all book interpretation eventually shows the ideology of the reader". It seems too easy to find counter examples. I think in this case, it's far more likely that your friend is unfortunately not too bright.
mcv 8y ago
It is incredibly relevant to politics today. Galvanising people's anger to get them to support something completely unrelated that's not good for them at all, is something we see constantly. In Brexit, in Trump, but also in many other cases. People are easy to manipulate. And instead of a warning, people are treating Orwell's books as an instruction manual.

scrumper 8y ago

I agree with you I think. I took it as more an anti-authoritarian story than purely anti-capitalist or anti-communist. The anti-capitalist parts are fairly self-evident, at least to me: that's the rather brutal system the farmer has imposed on the animals at the start. Booting the farmer out and starting again with the animal-owned collective sets the story up for the real message, which is that power corrupts and it is very easy for anyone attracted to power to co-opt legitimate grievance for their own ends. The return of the farmer brings a nice circularity to the story as well as giving the idea that the imposition of will on others is usually to their detriment. Capitalism or communism are basically indistinguishable to everyone existing without power or influence.

TopHand 8y ago
It is an allegory of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The farmer represents the Tsarist autocracy. In a Tsarist autocracy all power and wealth is controlled by the Tsar (Farmer Jones). This is actually a long way from capitalism. In the end the pigs form what is referred to as an oligarchy.
- misterdoubt 8y ago
  It is more than that, however, both in authorial intent and without it.

maxxxxx 8y ago

To me it’s a warning that when you rightfully overthrow an authoritarian you have to be careful not to trade that authoritarian against another one. This seems to happen all the time. Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia and probably many more.

O_H_E 8y ago
And Egypt 2011
- jessaustin 8y ago
  That episode just proves that Egypt's masters in the West don't really value democracy as much as they constantly claim to value it.
- fdsak 8y ago
  And West ! failed to accept real democracy when they saw that real democracy is very dangerous and unacceptable and not aligned with their interests.
  - gyaniv 8y ago
    There was never any real democracy there. It just changed from dictatorship to dictatorship to dictatorship.
    - O_H_E 8y ago
      I think you are talking about Egypt and @fdsak was talking about US & Europe
aasasd 8y ago
Russians have basically given up after riding this merry-go-round for the past almost two centuries.
- maxxxxx 8y ago

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

So many people seem to want to name-check Orwell for anti-communist purposes without recognizing that the man himself fought for a revolutionary socialist militia in the Spanish Civil War. In other words, he put his actual life on the line for communism (in the non-Stalinist form he interpreted it as), and actually ultimately probably died from complications related to injuries he sustained in that conflict.

tennisballboy5 8y ago
Wow
cturner 8y ago
His writing changed after Spain. He saw the deliberate press distortions, and the Soviets installing listening equipment in the telephone exchanges. If anything, this gives him greater credibility. This is a review he wrote of /We/, which I dug up while thinking about your comment. http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/zamyatin/english/e_zamy http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/zamyatin/english/e_zamy
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  Nothing there in that review is inconsistent with the anti-Stalinist but revolutionary socialist views of the POUM militia he fought with in Spain. Now, arguably "Emmanuel Goldstein" in 1984 is meant to be a kind of Trotsky figure (and his book within 1984), and the fact that Goldstein and his book are ultimately shown to be fake and created by the Party may be a kind of critique or renunciation of Trotskyism and similar currents. Hard to say.

aasasd 8y ago

Yeah, the thing that one should know about Orwell is that he was a socialist. Just a couple of quotes from Wikipedia: > He wrote to Cyril Connolly from Barcelona on 8 June 1937: "I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before." > In Part 2 of The Road to Wigan Pier, published by the Left Book Club, Orwell stated that "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown." Orwell stated in "Why I Write" (1946): "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." > According to biographer John Newsinger: "The other crucial dimension to Orwell's socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist – indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever." After all of this, it's hilarious when people continue to argue, without support, that the ‘not-anti-communist’ interpretation is mistaken.

aasasd 8y ago
Btw, I enjoyed watching the score on the above comment jump up and down. Apparently a bunch of people get irritated when their ideological hero gets called a dirty commie using the man's own words.

pathseeker 8y ago

>Over the years, the big impact of Orwell to me has been how readily people can look at systems that they consider to be Other than their own and critique them while eagerly ignoring the implications for their own situation. "Capitalism is terrible" is a pretty constant meme on the left in US politics right now, perpetuated by many people who have read that book. >where I live in Texas, all the sheep just think they are the farmer. Ah the classic "people that don't vote to tax the rich for entitlements think they are rich". If your model of how people vote depends on people being completely stupid, it's wrong.

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

Animal Farm can really be read as Orwell's retelling of Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed"

ckarmann 8y ago

For me one of the weirdest use of this book was a vegan (and animal rights supporter) friend who copy/pasted on Facebook the speech of Old Major, the eldest pig who incite the Revolution, who was explaining to the animals how bad the farmer was treating them. For her it was perfectly expressing her feeling that farming animals was a monstrosity and she was completely ignoring that the speech was designed by the pig to manipulate the listeners (the other animals) and that it was a metaphor of communism. So for her, the issue was indeed the farmer, not as symbol of capitalism, but simply as a farmer exploiting living beings. All symbolism was evacuated and all that remained was a rousing speech for animal rights. I suppose all book interpretation eventually shows the ideology of the reader. It doesn't even have to respect the presumed intention of Orwell who, from what I know, never expressed any support for veganism or actual animal rights.

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion of "all book interpretation eventually shows the ideology of the reader". It seems too easy to find counter examples. I think in this case, it's far more likely that your friend is unfortunately not too bright.

mcv 8y ago

It is incredibly relevant to politics today. Galvanising people's anger to get them to support something completely unrelated that's not good for them at all, is something we see constantly. In Brexit, in Trump, but also in many other cases. People are easy to manipulate. And instead of a warning, people are treating Orwell's books as an instruction manual.