ANIMAL FARM by GEORGE ORWELL [1946]

[Deleted member 1930]

Thoughts? I finished it for the 3rd time, i really like it personally.

 

[Yabba]

Great book, but I find it disturbing how modern academics are trying to cover up how the book is a critic of communism.

 

[RisingThumb]

Great book, but I find it disturbing how modern academics are trying to cover up how the book is a critic of communism.

I read this a decade ago, but I vaguely enough remember parts of it. It's not only a criticism of communism but it's much more a criticism of authoritarianism. The other pig's name is Napoleon, almost definitely in reference to Napoleon Bonaparte who was responsible for ushering in a lot of egalitarian and liberal changes within France following its revolution... but he fell for the classic failure most great emperors or great people in general fall for. They never think beyond their life- and so their achievements will fall apart very quickly. Marcus Aurelius, the last of the 4 great Roman Emperors fell for this, Otto Von Bismarck fell for this as WW1 came 20 years after his death. Any system predicated on moral and just use of power by authority, demands an authority that sees beyond their own death, or has policy set in place to prevent abuse(Like the Magna Carta). It was also a demonstration of the class system, and how the class system, as ugly as it is, is fairly integral to our societies as our various structures demand hierarchies to be put in place. It's also because equality(both of opportunity due to nepotism and networks, but of resources due to hard forces of physics) generally cannot be given, equity is debatable if it's possible to give too.

The egalitarian ideals of communism tend to require an authority to establish it, and an authority to keep it running- so while it has good intentions, authority and the way power corrupts makes it difficult to create a decent CLASSLESS social system predicated on authority(there are plenty of historical social systems predicated on authority that are... fine. Constitutional Monarchy tends to work best imo).

Great book, but I find it disturbing how modern academics are trying to cover up how the book is a critic of communism.

The Streisand effect will propel it into being read if it gets censored or covered up, so my fears about censoring books of all things are generally allayed. It's also down to the fact most people don't read books, and the few people who read books are educated, yet trapped in paralysis analysis(many philosophers and theologians end up in a Buridan's Ass of their own making, unable to act in accordance to the principles they preach).

Also Modern Academics is just a 300 year tradition of Prussian Schooling that only tests what's remembered, not understanding... so it's little wonder that modern academics have their heads full of facts remembered and misunderstood - not critically analysed! It also makes them great targets for trolling as their lack of analysis allows you to weave them into contradictions of their own making

 

[Fig]

Surprisingly, I actually read it in school (for the second time, first was of my own volition). Great book! I always enjoy seeing the first steps to the initially slow descent into an authoritarian regime. We also watched the old film for it in school. Strange sex scene in the beginning for whatever reason.

 

[Yabba]

I read this a decade ago, but I vaguely enough remember parts of it. It's not only a criticism of communism but it's much more a criticism of authoritarianism. The other pig's name is Napoleon, almost definitely in reference to Napoleon Bonaparte who was responsible for ushering in a lot of egalitarian and liberal changes within France following its revolution... but he fell for the classic failure most great emperors or great people in general fall for. They never think beyond their life- and so their achievements will fall apart very quickly. Marcus Aurelius, the last of the 4 great Roman Emperors fell for this, Otto Von Bismarck fell for this as WW1 came 20 years after his death. Any system predicated on moral and just use of power by authority, demands an authority that sees beyond their own death, or has policy set in place to prevent abuse(Like the Magna Carta). It was also a demonstration of the class system, and how the class system, as ugly as it is, is fairly integral to our societies as our various structures demand hierarchies to be put in place. It's also because equality(both of opportunity due to nepotism and networks, but of resources due to hard forces of physics) generally cannot be given, equity is debatable if it's possible to give too.

Yes I do believe that the book is also a criticism of authoritarianism. I was just saying that modern academics were covering up the criticism of communism in it.

The egalitarian ideals of communism tend to require an authority to establish it, and an authority to keep it running- so while it has good intentions, authority and the way power corrupts makes it difficult to create a decent CLASSLESS social system predicated on authority(there are plenty of historical social systems predicated on authority that are... fine. Constitutional Monarchy tends to work best imo).

The Streisand effect will propel it into being read if it gets censored or covered up, so my fears about censoring books of all things are generally allayed. It's also down to the fact most people don't read books, and the few people who read books are educated, yet trapped in paralysis analysis(many philosophers and theologians end up in a Buridan's Ass of their own making, unable to act in accordance to the principles they preach).

Also Modern Academics is just a 300 year tradition of Prussian Schooling that only tests what's remembered, not understanding... so it's little wonder that modern academics have their heads full of facts remembered and misunderstood - not critically analysed! It also makes them great targets for trolling as their lack of analysis allows you to weave them into contradictions of their own making

Interesting, I've never heard of the Streisand effect, I'm going to research this, and then come back

 

[Guru Meditation]

Great book, but I find it disturbing how modern academics are trying to cover up how the book is a critic of communism.

It's an allegory for Stalinism but I think it's also a critique of revolutions in general and how the revolutionaries become the very thing they're trying to replace.

 

[dorgon]

Thoughts? I finished it for the 3rd time, i really like it personally.

I remember reading the book in high school. I have broken memories of what happens in the book but i remember that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I know people like to point out that "George Orwell was a democratic socialist!!!!!" but he mainly criticized the authoritarian aspects of socialism and blah blah.... I'm sure you all know it already. I might have to read it again if I want to talk about the quality of the actual writing though......

 

[nsequeira119]

Animal Farm is, without a doubt, the dumbest, most blatant piece of anti-Communist propaganda ever written. It lacks subtlety, nuance, wit and everything else that a great piece of literature should possess, and how anyone took it seriously without laughing George Doorknob off the face of the earth is beyond me. Every character is literally just Lenin or whatever, it's about as deep as Private Snafu. It's written with the tact of a kindergartener because the author only possesses the intelligence of a kindergartener. As long as we keep passing around this dumb British slop, humanity will never advance towards any higher state of being. (fyi, I'm not even a Communist. Everyone, anti-Communists and Communists alike, should be able to agree that Orwell was a talentless fraud).

0 stars, go play in the sandbox

 

[SchizoNomad]

Thoughts? I finished it for the 3rd time, i really like it personally.

I only read it for two reasons:
1 - Because of that Pink Floyd album
2 - The screwed up political situation in my country and I thought it would be funny
Honestly I know very little about who exactly George Orwell was, love the art not the artist

 

[Yabba]

It's an allegory for Stalinism but I think it's also a critique of revolutions in general and how the revolutionaries become the very thing they're trying to replace.

Stalinism is still a part of how people view and understand Communism, when Orwell criticized it he was still criticizing Communism albeit only a part. Yes it also is absolutely a criticism of revolutionaries, which I believe was important to Orwell as I imagined he didn't want revolutionaries to replicate the ones in the book. Revolutionaries are still a part of Communism, as they are necessary to bring it about.

 

[404 Username Not Found]

Had to read it for school, always felt 1984 was better. Considering I'd already done some Soviet History at the time, I felt it was really boring - confused in the allegory (Who is supposed to be Lenin; is it Old Major, Snowball, or Napoleon?). The most interesting thing I ended up learning from it was that in the French version, they apparently renamed Napoleon to Ceaser because it seemed bad taste to name the villain after a national hero. And also that the US literally used planes to drop it into Soviet nations to try and get the populace to rise up, which I always thought very silly.