Animal Farm
discussion
1945 and so "new"
date
newest »
newest »
Great book, but the term "fascists" is fairly broad. I've always felt the book was an allegory and it's main focus was in the events in Russia leading up to the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism afterwards. Orwell was a socialist, but had nothing but contempt for the brutal dictatorship that the Russian Revolution gave birth to in the guise of a "worker's paradise".
Jon has it right, Orwell was writing about Leftism and socialism. Soviet socialism in particular. Old Major is Marx, Napoleon is Stalin, Snowball is Trotsky.
That´s correct. My fault!
thecryptile wrote: "Jon has it right, Orwell was writing about Leftism and socialism. Soviet socialism in particular. Old Major is Marx, Napoleon is Stalin, Snowball is Trotsky."Since Orwell was quite clear about this very publicly, it's worth taking the time to get right.
George Orwell was a socialist. All of his life. He was a believer in socialism. He WAS a "leftist".
This book is about how Stalin was bad. It's not against an idea and certainly not against socialism. It's just a story about how one evil man took over a revolution and everything got very ugly.
Nothing more.
I'm well aware that George Orwell AKA Eric Blair was a disillusioned socialist (it's mentioned in the post above mine that I was agreeing with- c'mon). That in no way invalidates my statement that his writings were "about Leftism and socialism... Soviet socialism in particular." Moving on, as the OP noted; in the 21st Century, we can see that the problem is with socialism itself. That's why 21st century Latin American socialism has the same problems as 20th Century Russian socialism.
thecryptile wrote: "That in no way invalidates my statement that his writings were "about Leftism and socialism... Soviet socialism in particular." It doesn't really need to be invalidated since it is factually incorrect. I'm not arguing in favor of socialism as a social system, understand, I'm simply pointing out the objective fact that Animal Farm is not about socialism at all. It is essentially hate mail for one man (Stalin).
The confusion people have about the subject of Animal Farm stems from the propaganda the west used (yes, both sides used propaganda) in the cold war to repaint a book as being about something else to further the political ends of the establishment.
In fact, he had trouble getting the book published for years because everyone knew it was about Stalin and he was very popular in the west at the time so no one wanted to say anything bad about him. It was only later that the book was re-purposed by teachers and the like.
Further, it's important to note purely as a matter of fact, that the political system of the soviet union was Communism, not socialism. Confusing the two is also a classic trait of the western propaganda machine. It's possible and in fact nearly universally true that both sides use propaganda.
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of communism or socialism or anything else. I'm only interested in saving a good book from having more confusion surrounding it as a result of lies told to school children.
It's enough to be against Stalin who was a monster of epic proportions. It doesn't need to be more. Please let it be what it is.
I know propaganda isn't limited to the Communist Party. Heck, the term was invented by the Roman Catholic Church. These days, we call it Public Relations. Orwell had trouble getting published because the war-time censors in Britain didn't want to offend their Soviet allies-- but that doesn't mean that Stalin was universally popular, far from it. His regime was roundly condemned by virtually every conservative in the world. Plenty of folks had bad things to say about Uncle Joe.
Noting purely as a matter of fact, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't a communist state, it was a socialist state. Stalin called for "Socialism in one country" (the USSR) in opposition to Trotsky's "permanent revolution".
All so-called "communist" states were or are socialist states. Socialism is a step on the path to communism- but true communism has never been tried; just ask any communist.
It's also worth noting that Orwell was a believer in democratic socialism. Not all forms of socialism are the same. Democratic socialism is different from classical Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, libertarian socialism etc.
Let Orwell's work speak for itself-- against totalitarianism in general and the Stalinist form of Soviet socialism in particular. Let it continue to expose hypocritical elites who praise equality and tolerance, yet make mock of such notions with their own actions.
Instead of "saving a good book from... more confusion" you're relegating it to the "ash-heap of history". Please let Animal Farm continue to be relevant, rather than dismissing it as mere "hate mail" for a man who died over 60 years ago.
Just looked at what I wrote, I sound a little upset lol- Daniel, I ain't mad at ya. But I do agree with the OP, that Animal Farm applies to other regimes that share features with Stalinism.
Plus the "Death of the Author" style of interpretation has really picked up steam-- readers interpret the work itself, and often ignore the author's intentions. Maybe Orwell was only writing hate mail to Stalin-- but readers in the 21st Century are more concerned about Nic Maduro.
Anyway, Animal Farm is a pretty good book-- and one that can still be a tad controversial. I think Orwell would be pleased to know that he's still making us think.
thecryptile wrote: "Let Orwell's work speak for itself-- against totalitarianism in general and the Stalinist form of Soviet socialism in particular. Let it continue to expose hypocritical elites who praise equality and tolerance, yet make mock of such notions with their own actions.Instead of "saving a good book from... more confusion" you're relegating it to the "ash-heap of history". Please let Animal Farm continue to be relevant, rather than dismissing it as mere "hate mail" for a man who died over 60 years ago. "
I disagree with you about the ash heap of history. I think a book can be relevant without pretending it is about something it isn't.
By all means, be against socialism. Be against communism too. I'm only saying that when Animal Farm is used in this context, it's only accurate to note that it's not actually about those things.
The so-called Death Of the Author interpretation method is basically fancy-speak for "I want it to be about something else, so I'm going to act as if it is." This is certainly anyone's right to do, but that doesn't make it accurate.
I do love the book. I think it's important as a commentary on how out of control Stalin got and how quickly he did so and how easily that could happen in any other situation. Of course, the situations in which a human being can get out of control are not remotely limited to socialism or communism. Anytime a human being has power over another (police officer, school teacher, employer, banker, doctors in certain circumstances, political lobbyists, special interest groups, etc).
One can take lessons from the book without applying a commentary he wasn't making and was, in fact, against (condemning socialism). That's all I'm saying.
Acknowledging that Orwell wanted more socialism not less doesn't require you to stop liking the book. It's perfectly possible to disagree with an author on all kinds of points and still enjoy their work. The only thing acknowledgment changes is that you can't really use it as an argument against socialism en masse.
P.S. The fact that the word "socialist" is used (by Stalin or in the name USSR) is no more proof of it being a socialist country than the fact that Bush called the "patriot act" what he did is proof that it's patriotic. Anyone can use any word anywhere. It doesn't make it so.
I'm certainly not angry either. I just think it's important to be mindful of the human tendency to recast anything insightful to be about whatever it is we happen to be against and in favor of what we happen to like. It ends up being a subtle trick we play on ourselves where we adapt the Appeal To Authority to fit whatever point we're trying to make even if the actual point originally made is not relevant to what we're trying to support.
thecryptile wrote: "I think Orwell would be pleased to know that he's still making us think. "Agreed.
Duane wrote: "you're missing something...As the story progresses, the Pigs (communists, socialists, whatever) become progressively more and more like the farmers (capitalists, Kulaks, whatever)
until at the ..."
Well said.
I think part of what makes a book 'literature' is that it has the ability to transcend time. A well-written book speaks to the human condition and reaches people no matter where they are in space and time.Of course, there are other ways for books to be well-written, but in this case it is, in large part, because people who read it now still get it; it still feels current to us. Interestingly, I suspect that part of the reason Animal Farm is a good book is that it also provokes the type of debate/discussion that is occurring on this thread. It speaks to us no matter what our filters are.
I read ANimal Farm as samizdat in Czechoslovakia in 1974. We had to type some pages with carbon copies- yes pre-historic pre computer age) to disseminate it. I loved the book partly because Orwell understood totally what communist regimes were about. One of life changing books for me. I emigrated to England in 1986.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Esse livro foi publicado em 1945. É impressionante como continua atual. Foi escrito contra o fascismo, mas descreve o que aconteceu em Cuba, Venezuela e, agora, o que está acontecendo no Brasil com o silenciamento cada vez mais gradativo da imprensa livre. Eu li "Revolução dos Bichos" quando tinha 15 anos. Agora, com 32, ainda é uma ótima leitura!