In typing out this thread, I considered whether or not it belonged in the Politics forum. I decided against posting there, as most of the material covered there is either of a contemporary (often American) nature, or discussing abstract ideas in practice. This is supposed to be a brief discussion on a piece of fictional literature, and although this particular story, as I'm about to argue, is specifically and politically tied, it's just not Politics material. Sorry guys, but I think it's a popular enough story to have some thought here. Background stuff on the story can be found on the net if it's at all important to you.
I first read Animal Farm, a couple of weeks ago, after it had been sitting on my "must-read list" for some time. My main motivations for reading it included the usual lust for just getting to grips with various examples of modern classic literature, but I had some other reasons to read this story too - in particular, my own socio-political interests of the past few years, and because of my Mum. My Mum loves the phrase "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Back at home, we've had some political discussions before over dinner. My Dad's brought up his sort of thinking at my age before, and I've brought up my own, and I personally don't think the sort of things I think of in terms of progression could be termed as "communist", though I think that's the same for a vast amount of kidders, haha.
My point? Is Animal Farm a one-size-fits-all criticism of socialist idealism, never mind what we tend to refer to as communism? I personally don't think that's the case at all, and while I'm following the conclusions of a fair amount of readers of the story, it seems that this is the way many people have read the story. I have two reasons for this: Animal Farm's allegories are specific, its characters and events corresponding to moments in Russian history, from the civil war, to the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin in the '20s, from the show trails, to World War II and the Tehran conference at the very end. My second reason is what Orwell himself wanted to point out with the story, as far as I've been able to drag out from a bit of reading on the outside: to make it clear to British (and other western) intellectuals that totalitarianism isn't acceptable, even when it is done "in the name of socialism". Simply put, he was a disilluisioned guy, disillusioned with different parts of the idea: this story attacked more than a few of those points. It's quite a simple point today in some way, where we have easy access to different piece of historical evidence, but given WW2, people were anxious to admit to this... or maybe they were too idealistic, to the extent they were hurting themselves?
And Animal Farm, with all its rich English iconography slotted in for the sake of its allegory and convenience to the western reader, could probably be an adequate interpretation of the offsprings of Stalinism still known to us today, including Maoism (however much this has been derailed within China since 1976, or much earlier for that matter) and juche. On this level, it doesn't work as an overall criticism of moderate-to-extreme leftist ideals though, despite how its been used over the years. What Animal Farm might do is discuss what sort of issues a nation might face when working off a near-immediate transition, like the Bolsheviks were doing in 1917. Is that relevant as a way of looking forward and seeing how moderate change could be implemented? Historical study is important, but it also can't accont for everything as a result of differing contexts. Bringing Trotsky back into the frame briefly, I was talking to an online associate once about this sort of thing, and he joked that if you were to have lunch with Trotsky tomorrow, and you told him "Oh sir, I use your work to form my thoughts in the United Kingdom in the year 2009" (he understands English in this fantasy), he'd most likely laugh in your face. His works addressed Russia in the first half of the twentieth century... just like Animal Farm.
Put briefly anyway, as a way of getting this little thing off my chest. I also just watched the animated Animal Farm, and just like 443548 critics before me, I give the different ending away to a special someone's death during production. Not sure about that entirely, but I'd say it was some motivation at least.
TL:DR? Erm, George Orwell's Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution and the development of Stalinism. Is it useful to use it as a way of explaining other lieftist theories, even the most moderate?
