Animal Farm

[Daz]

I read this book by George Orwell again. I know Orwell was a socialist and this book was meant to parody Stalin. I have noticed some people here defend Stalin, which I have never seen before. I'm wondering what people think of Orwell and was he right in his portrayal of Stalin?

[Blackscare]

Well, I think it's important to read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, which documents his participation in the Spanish Civil War, in order to understand his take on Stalinism. That experience lead very directly to his views as expressed in Animal Farm, in my opinion.

[alexo]

Would agree with black there. he became very critical of Stalinism following his experiences during the Spanish Civil war.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am a revolutionary socialist who does not support Stalin. I think Orwell was very angry about what he felt was the strangulation of the revolution by the burocracy.

In the states, mainstream politics are so narrow, that Animal Farm is taught in most high schools as an explanation of "why socialism is inherently flawed". How you teach a story that is written by a famous socialist and is an obvious allegory for the Russian Revolution in a way that says capitalism = good, socialism = pipe dream? This alone is an argument for better education funding.

I mean come-on High School lit curriculum! The book has an easy formula: Farmer=bad, animals revolt, the animals are surrounded by other bad farmers and when they can't make and sell their farm goods, some of the animals take the role of the farmer and begin acting like him. So, the schools point out that Napoleon is Stalin, but in this formula that means Stalin was bad because he acted like the farmer. The Farmer=capitalism, so capitalism still=bad!

[alexo]

I fail to see how anybody reading animal farm could come to the conclusion capitalism is good! regardless of whether they are high school kidsor not.

[Nulono]

The book clearly is meant to show how Stalin was only using communism as a guise. As soon as the pigs started getting special treatment, the Farm was no longer a commune.

[Daz]

The book clearly is meant to show how Stalin was only using communism as a guise. As soon as the pigs started getting special treatment, the Farm was no longer a commune.
Yeah the turning point is where the pigs keep the milk and apples for themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah the turning point is where the pigs keep the milk and apples for themselves.

Don't forget they sleep in the Farmer's house too! The farmer's house should have been split up or used as a communal space - pigs!

[GuerrillaBrad]

If Napoleon represented Stalin, then it would make sense that Snowball would represent Trotsky. So whats your take on him?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I like the DP spin on it - clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubMQkPzc0Fs) - where the animals have a second revolution against the pigs

[communard resolution]

Animal Farm was obviously not meant to be an in-depth analysis (it's a fable, after all), but an impression. As such, it's a very clever and extremely poignant book.

What keeps amazing me is that towards the end of the book, Orwell virtually predicts 'Revisionism' (including 'peaceful coexistence') and the eventual return to full-blown capitalism - and it was written in 1945! Makes you think, doesn't it?

[rednordman]

I think that if Orwell knew how much fame this book was going to get, and how it was going to get fabricated and exploited against his own ideals, he would not have written it.

[communard resolution]

I think that if Orwell knew how much fame this book was going to get, and how it was going to get fabricated and exploited against his own ideals, he would not have written it.

There are two groups who misinterpretate the book as anti-communist: capitalists and anti-revisionists. They are both wrong.

[rednordman]

There are two groups who misinterpretate the book as anti-communist: capitalists and anti-revisionists. They are both wrong.This i agree with, but the book has only portrayed the message that capitalism is the only option in the end. Obviously he meant more to it than that, but unfortuanelty it is even part of schools curriculum world-wide as to why they think socialism is flawed.

[Cumannach]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.

[Bitter Ashes]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.
Going to all that trouble to volunteer to fight in a civil war in another country to overthrow captialism? Somehow I dont think he did this by accident.

I guess he just didnt like Stalin.

[communard resolution]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.

Animal Farm was obviously not meant to be an in-depth analysis (it's a fable, after all), but an impression. As such, it's a very clever and extremely poignant book.

What keeps amazing me is that towards the end of the book, Orwell virtually predicts 'Revisionism' (including 'peaceful coexistence') and the eventual return to full-blown capitalism - and it was written in 1945! Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In view of the fact that Orwell portrayed the capitalists as human beings, and the workers as animals (who only become human when they begin to oppress fellow workers), we should take much of what he says with a large pinch of salt.

[communard resolution]

In view of the fact that Orwell portrayed the capitalists as human beings, and the workers as animals (who only become human when they begin to oppress fellow workers), we should take much of what he says with a large pinch of salt.

He painted all humans in a very negative light and most animals in a postive light, though. The moment they become 'like humans' they become 'as bad as humans'. I thought this much was obvious.

Anyhow, it's a fable. Animals are not 'sub-human' in fables.

[Blackscare]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.


You must have intentionally avoided learning anything about Orwell to come to such a simplistic and stupid conclusion about him.

[Random Precision]

What keeps amazing me is that towards the end of the book, Orwell virtually predicts 'Revisionism' (including 'peaceful coexistence') and the eventual return to full-blown capitalism - and it was written in 1945! Makes you think, doesn't it?

The end of the book (the pigs and the farmers meeting in Jones' house and getting drunk) was a shot at the Tehran Conference between Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Peaceful coexistence at that point was a fact, although of course it had yet to be declared as an official policy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nero the Emperor:


He painted all humans in a very negative light and most animals in a postive light, though. The moment they become 'like humans' they become 'as bad as humans'. I thought this much was obvious.

Even so, workers are portrayed as animals.


Anyhow, it's a fable. Animals are not 'sub-human' in fables.

But, if humans have been painted in such a bad light, according to you, then it is not to their credit to be told that animals are not 'sub-human' (in fables).

[LOLseph Stalin]

But, if humans have been painted in such a bad light, according to you, then it is not to their credit to be told that animals are not 'sub-human' (in fables).

Well the whole idea is that the humans are supposed to be the Capitalists so they're portrayed badly because the animals are being oppressed by them.

[Cumannach]

Animal Farm was obviously not meant to be an in-depth analysis (it's a fable, after all), but an impression.



No it was meant to be an insidious piece of anti-communist propaganda useful to try and brainwash kids with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No it was meant to be an insidious piece of anti-communist propaganda useful to try and brainwash kids with.

I'm sure that's exactly what George Orwell was thinking when he wrote it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

InsertNameHere:


Well the whole idea is that the humans are supposed to be the Capitalists so they're portrayed badly because the animals are being oppressed by them.

Yes, I got that. My point was that if humans are portrayed in such a bad light (in Orwell's alleged fable), then Nero's claim that in fables animals are not sub-human does them (the animals) no credit at all.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm sure that's exactly what George Orwell was thinking when he wrote it.

I'm sure it was. :rolleyes:

Being a Socialist himself i'm sure the book was intended to be Anti-Stalinist, not Anti-Communist. Schools just want you to believe it's Anti-Communist since Communism=bad.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, I got that. My point was that if humans are portryed in such a bad light (in Orwell's alleged fable), then Nero's claim that in fables animals are not sub-human does them no credit at all.

Ah, ok. I probably misunderstood your post then.

[MikeSC]

InsertNameHere:



Yes, I got that. My point was that if humans are portrayed in such a bad light (in Orwell's alleged fable), then Nero's claim that in fables animals are not sub-human does them (the animals) no credit at all.

So where does that leave your denouncement of Animal Farm for portraying the workers as animals? :confused:

Anyway, it's not simply anti-Communist propaganda- the divergence from communism is where it all goes tits up. Best to take it, like Road to Wigan Pier and the like, as constructive criticism from a fellow socialist who, rightfully I think, considered certain movements to be going about it the wrong way.

[Young-and-angry]

I read this a year ago at school, excellent, I think it was simply Orwell saying a good idea like socilaism (equality) was hijacked and made a new set of boeurgoise, once again oppressing the worker.

[Idealism]

InsertNameHere:



Yes, I got that. My point was that if humans are portrayed in such a bad light (in Orwell's alleged fable), then Nero's claim that in fables animals are not sub-human does them (the animals) no credit at all.

Maybe Orwell saw animals in a different light than you. In my reading i thought the Humans existed to show a class division, and as we do in our world; there is a self appointed oligarchy. By giving the animals such human characteristics it is though shown that they are not in fact inferior, but are oppressed.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.

Ok, one you're a Stalinist, and your opinion would be that, as this book was intended to be "contre Stalin", two, if you even know who George Orwell was, or anything about what his views were, I'd have thought you'd have know he was not anti-Communist, he was probably anti-Stalinist, and he had good reason to be too, Stalinism is a disgusting branch of "Communism", if you can even call it that.

[Cumannach]

What was a pro-socialist, pro-communist doing drawing up lists of writers for the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit?

And what exactly is so socialist or communist about writing a fable about pigs and farm animals that teaches the lesson of the futility of revolution?

[Daz]

e
What was a pro-socialist, pro-communist doing drawing up lists of writers for the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit?

And what exactly is so socialist or communist about writing a fable about pigs and farm animals that teaches the lesson of the futility of revolution?
I wonder if Orwell would be considered a conservative by todays standards. I find when reading 1984 and Animal Farm you get a sense that resistance is futile.
I also would not have realized he was anti-capitalist unless I read it somewhere else.

[communard resolution]

Even so, workers are portrayed as animals.

So?



But, if humans have been painted in such a bad light, according to you,Have they not, according to you? Have you read the book?


then it is not to their credit to be told that animals are not 'sub-human' (in fables).You're playing semantic games, and yet at the same time you know what I mean. Animals are not 'sub-human' in fables generally. In Animal Farm specifically, animals are portrayed as more sympathetic, more solidaric characters than humans - until some of them become like humans themselves.

[Blackscare]

What was a pro-socialist, pro-communist doing drawing up lists of writers for the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit?

And what exactly is so socialist or communist about writing a fable about pigs and farm animals that teaches the lesson of the futility of revolution?


He was describing the danger of degeneration when revolution is carried out wrong. That's very different from saying revolution is futile. He actually was very favorable towards the ground-level revolution going on in Catalonia (which was squashed by the pro-Stalin communist party), for instance.


If revolution = Stalinism, I'd agree that it is a futile endeavor. Good thing isn't the same thing.

It's always fun to watch the Stalinists try to identify anti-Stalin sentiment with counterrevolution.


Anti-Stalinism != anti-communism.

[Kassad]

Cumannach, I must tell you this as an anti-revisionist myself. You must be completely and utterly brain-dead. Orwell's book was not an attack on revolution. If you paid attention to one goddamn word of the book, you'd see that before Snowball's forced exile, he supported claiming more apples for the pigs. That is an obvious display that Orwell would not have been surprised to see Snowball, who is a portrayal of Trotsky, to become corrupted and elitist as well. There is not one sentence in the book that says revolution is futile, but merely that a bureaucratic or elitist oligarchy will likely be the critical component that brings down revolutionary struggle. He displayed that the pigs became the new ruling class, which they did, in a sense. If there isn't total workers control, there is no socialism and there will never be communism. Your consistent, uncritical defense of Stalin's state apparatus is appaling even to me, one of the most adamant supporters of anti-revisionism and Joseph Stalin.

You either did not read the book or you did and were so obsessed with a few flaws that you totally missed the point. It isn't anti-revolution. It isn't anti-communist. It was anti-Stalin, and regardless of your opinion, being anti-Stalin does not make you an anti-communist. It can, but I don't claim that Trotskyists aren't communists. If you do, you really need to go get a breath of fresh air and see that every person opposed to certain aspects of the Soviet Union is not some reactionary capitalist looking to impede revolutionary struggle.

You honestly have turned into a propaganda machine. Here's one thing I really hate and I will say is a key flaw in anti-revisionism: we consistently realize that American propaganda and Western propaganda played a significant role in demonizing Stalin and the Soviet Union. Regardless, we must say the same for the Soviet Union. There will always be propaganda when one group rules over another, therefore, every goddamn word in the Soviet archives or that Stalin stated is not unconditional truth either, as Stalin was not unconditionally good. So get off the pedestal, stop criticizing everyone who doesn't cum every time they see Stalin's face and realize that communism and Marxism are not fucking dogmatic.

[Das war einmal]

Regarding the time it was written. You can be damn sure that its ment to be an anti-communist novel. The Cold War had allready begun in 1945, the whole western europe had high regard of the Soviet Union, which just had lost more than 20 million soviet citizens and soldiers in the war against fascism. George Orwell let himself be used as a tool for bourgeois propaganda. He was one of the cowards who called upon revolution against the 'stalinist bureaucracy' while the germans where standing at the gates of Leningrad and Moscow. He is still being used as an anti-communist author btw.

[Pogue]

Regarding the time it was written. You can be damn sure that its ment to be an anti-communist novel. The Cold War had allready begun in 1945, the whole western europe had high regard of the Soviet Union, which just had lost more than 20 million soviet citizens and soldiers in the war against fascism. George Orwell let himself be used as a tool for bourgeois propaganda. He was one of the cowards who called upon revolution against the 'stalinist bureaucracy' while the germans where standing at the gates of Leningrad and Moscow. He is still being used as an anti-communist author btw.

Coward? You'd say the man who voluntarily travelled all the way to Spain, took a bullet to the neck whilst fighting fascists and was nearly imprisoned by the Stalinists for being in the POUM was a coward? The man stood on the front to fight fascism and nearly died for it, and spent days sleeping in the streets on constant alert at being arrested by the Stalinist police. He was by no means a coward. Jesus christ, whats your definition of brave then?

[Pogue]

And he wasn't anti-communist. This is clear form his politics and writings, as well as the fact he served with communist revolutionaries in an revolutionary area in defense of it during the civil war.

[Led Zeppelin]

Moved to Literature.

[Das war einmal]

Coward? You'd say the man who voluntarily travelled all the way to Spain, took a bullet to the neck whilst fighting fascistsand was nearly imprisoned by the Stalinists for being in the POUM was a coward? The man stood on the front to fight fascism and nearly died for it, and spent days sleeping in the streets on constant alert at being arrested by the Stalinist police. He was by no means a coward. Jesus christ, whats your definition of brave then?

I was referring to the standpoint he took in WW2. That was cowardice to me, sufficed to say, I must apologize for calling him a coward all together. Alas, we were discussing Animal Farm. In the lights of the time it was written, I, myself, as a marxist-leninist, observe it as an anti-communist piece of work. You can disagree with that, but in the perspective that all left communist fractions are trivial compared to marxist-leninist parties (certainly in that particular time), to the majority of the people equaled communism to marxism-leninism

[Kassad]

I was referring to the standpoint he took in WW2. That was cowardice to me, sufficed to say, I must apologize for calling him a coward all together. Alas, we were discussing Animal Farm. In the lights of the time it was written, I, myself, as a marxist-leninist, observe it as an anti-communist piece of work. You can disagree with that, but in the perspective that all left communist fractions are trivial compared to marxist-leninist parties (certainly in that particular time)

Cowardice? Are you fucking kidding me? You sound like the patriotic Americans who say dissent is breaking the country apart and making unity impossible. It is not cowardly to stand up against a war, a regime or a leader that you disagree with. There is a difference between reactionary resistance that impedes revolutionary struggle and Orwell's brand of resistance, in which he opposed Stalin's rule. Again, unconditional support of Stalin is abhorrent to struggle.

[Cumannach]

I'll ignore the parts admiring the moronic barnyard animal tale, and the other crap


...It isn't anti-communist. It was anti-Stalin, and regardless of your opinion, being anti-Stalin does not make you an anti-communist. It can, but I don't claim that Trotskyists aren't communists...Well, I'm sorry to shatter some of your illusions, but Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union during the period of Stalin's leadership of the Communist Party was a socialist state, lead by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. And so anti-Stalin is indeed anti-communist to an anti-revisionist, not because an attack on Stalin is an insult to a really swell guy, but because it's the manifestation of an attack on Marxism-Leninism and on Socialism.

An Anti-Revisionist does claim that a Trotskyist is not a genuine communist and vice-versa. Of course, one tendency does not neccesarily consider another totally reactionary, maybe only misguided and different tendencies can work together at times.

But you do understand that a Trotskyist believes the Soviet Union was not socialist and that an anti-revisionist believes it was? And that this is a little more than a difference of opinion on some triviality beween history buffs?

You think people like to defend Stalin because he's a really cool charismatic fun hero?

To be honest, you don't seem to understand the significance of Stalin at all, though you say you're an anti-revisionist.

[Weezer]

Orwell was an anti-communist, and his little story about farm animals is a crude, infantile piece of crap.

lololololololololololololol

Communism not does equal Stalinism.

Orwell was a Democratic Socialist and anti-Stalinist. Orwell fought in the P.O.U.M. militia during the Spanish Civil War. He loved Anarchist Catalonia because he considered it a worker's paraside.

Educate yourself, sir.

P.S. Democratic Stalinist is an oxymoron.

[Blackscare]

I'll ignore the parts admiring the moronic barnyard animal tale, and the other crap

Well, I'm sorry to shatter some of your illusions, but Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union during the period of Stalin's leadership of the Communist Party was a socialist state, lead by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. And so anti-Stalin is indeed anti-communist to an anti-revisionist, not because an attack on Stalin is an insult to a really swell guy, but because it's the manifestation of an attack on Marxism-Leninism and on Socialism.

An Anti-Revisionist does claim that a Trotskyist is not a genuine communist and vice-versa. Of course, one tendency does not neccesarily consider another totally reactionary, maybe only misguided and different tendencies can work together at times.

But you do understand that a Trotskyist believes the Soviet Union was not socialist and that an anti-revisionist believes it was? And that this is a little more than a difference of opinion on some triviality beween history buffs?

You think people like to defend Stalin because he's a really cool charismatic fun hero?

To be honest, you don't seem to understand the significance of Stalin at all, though you say you're an anti-revisionist.


So you're basically proclaiming and embracing a moronic and childish tit-for-tat mentality that gets us nowhere? Never mind that the USSR doesn't even exist anymore.


Politics to most people consists of more than some nigh-religious argument over who is or is not an infidel.

You're basically just admitting that you're being totally sectarian and thick-headed, because you see it as the duty of any proper "anti-revisionist" to slander anyone who questions Stalin's USSR, and expect others to do the same in response.

Way to encourage intelligent discourse among the left.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well, I'm sorry to shatter some of your illusions, but Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union during the period of Stalin's leadership of the Communist Party was a socialist state, lead by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. And so anti-Stalin is indeed anti-communist to an anti-revisionist, not because an attack on Stalin is an insult to a really swell guy, but because it's the manifestation of an attack on Marxism-Leninism and on Socialism.

This is just simply ridiculous. As you've said different tendencies have different opinions about the Soviet Union. Just because one tendency says it's not Socialist that doesn't mean that particular tendency isn't Socialist themselves. You make it seem as if it didn't have flaws under Stalin's leadership when indeed other Anti-Revisionists know that there was flaws under Stalin's leadership. So instead of looking at one side it might help to look at both sides and realize that different groups have different ideas about how to acheive Communism. Your comment just made you sound sectarian.

[Kassad]

Well, I'm sorry to shatter some of your illusions, but Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union during the period of Stalin's leadership of the Communist Party was a socialist state, lead by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. And so anti-Stalin is indeed anti-communist to an anti-revisionist, not because an attack on Stalin is an insult to a really swell guy, but because it's the manifestation of an attack on Marxism-Leninism and on Socialism.

An Anti-Revisionist does claim that a Trotskyist is not a genuine communist and vice-versa. Of course, one tendency does not neccesarily consider another totally reactionary, maybe only misguided and different tendencies can work together at times.

But you do understand that a Trotskyist believes the Soviet Union was not socialist and that an anti-revisionist believes it was? And that this is a little more than a difference of opinion on some triviality beween history buffs?

You think people like to defend Stalin because he's a really cool charismatic fun hero?

To be honest, you don't seem to understand the significance of Stalin at all, though you say you're an anti-revisionist.

Feel free to go fuck yourself. Genuine socialism means the working class is in power. Totally. Unconditionally. There is no socialism without a dictatorship of the proletariat. That means that the working class is constructing a workers state, as opposed to a dictatorship of the bourgeois. The vanguard party is meant to lead revolutionary struggle, but it cannot lead revolutionary struggle if it is not comprised of the working class itself. In this case, Joseph Stalin executed a significant amount of people during the Great Purges. I'm very aware that it couldn't have just been Stalin, since party leadership made such decisions, but he was the figurehead of the party. I guarantee you that most decisions went by his desk before they were approved. A lot of people died and a lot of those people were workers. The Purge was not unconditionally good.

Unconditional worship of Stalin, which is something you are very fond of, is totally disgusting. The Great Purge and the subsequent police state measures that followed during that period killed off a significant number of people; not for the benefit of the working class, but to maintain party rule. Of course, suppression of capitalist reactionaries is totally necessary, but instead of, you know, sending fuckers to the labor camps, why not instead continue socialist reforms and gain the support of the working class? Genuine socialism means that the bourgeois is no longer in power and that the working class has taken the reins. The working class was not totally in power, thus it was not a workers state. Stalin was not unconditionally good.

Funny that Stalin saw to it that most of the Bolshevik leaders were killed off. Could this be because they were betraying revolution that they worked their entire lives for? I'm sure they were capitalists in disguise. Maybe Stalin feared the competition? Nonsense!

Really, the only argument that the Purges were widely exaggerated is supported by the Soviet Archives, so of course it's going to deny killings and such. It's one thing when the working class stands strong in the face of adversity and rejects counterrevolution. It's another thing when people are totally erased from history, including former party leaders, to maintain total control. Again, repressing capitalist reactionaries is necessary, but there is an extent to which it becomes elitist and bureaucratic.

Thanks, I understand his impact greatly. I do not believe he upheld Marxism-Leninism to its fullest degree, as they call for a workers state, not a state dominated by an oligarchy. You also need to remember that anti-revisionism means that we uphold Marx and Lenin to the fullest extent. Anything else after that is debatable and though I defend Stalin consistently, there are points in which you cannot call people who criticize Stalin anti-communists just because they disagree with different things that took place. There are many legitimate criticisms of Stalin and if noting those and attempting to not cling to dogma like you do means I'm not an anti-revisionist, than I'll enjoy the logical thinkers area over here. We've got air conditioning.

[Das war einmal]

Cowardice? Are you fucking kidding me? You sound like the patriotic Americans who say dissent is breaking the country apart and making unity impossible. It is not cowardly to stand up against a war, a regime or a leader that you disagree with. There is a difference between reactionary resistance that impedes revolutionary struggle and Orwell's brand of resistance, in which he opposed Stalin's rule. Again, unconditional support of Stalin is abhorrent to struggle.

Didnt Orwell call upon an overthrow of the USSR government in the middle of the war? Thats more than just mere criticism. The work of Animal Farm is upheaveled as a masterpiece against communism. It really doesnt matter if that was Orwells point. You know, literature, as other forms of art, is a way of telling something, but it is upon the reader to decide just what the writer ment by it. I've read it, a couple of times, and what I experienced (thats personal ofcourse) was a totally dishonest picture that was drawn of the USSR. I understand by reading the book that Napoleon was to blame that he didnt receive help from farm B when he was attacked by farm A. That he was feasting like a king together with his pig brethren while the other animals became sick. And that, in the end, he was no better than the farmer they kicked out.

You can wonder why Orwell made more effort in his later works attacking socialists regimes than he did at capitalism.

Listen, I was as a young boy disgusted by this book. I thought it was anticommunist. And everybody I've spoken are all like: yeah communism doesnt work, I've only read Animal Farm and its based on that. Isnt that the whole point? That the most people read this book and think, yeah you know communism isnt the answer because its in the nature of men to be greedy bastards exploiting others.

[Das war einmal]

Question: If Stalin was so bad, why didn't the working class oppose him at all? Where were the mass demonstrations, strikes and protests? Why was all the opposition only from other bureaucrats like Trotsky and the like? I'm genuinely curious to see if there was any opposition from the non-party, actual working classes themselves to Stalin.

There were protests ofcourse, like certain Ukrainian kulaks who burned down their crops and killed their own livestock rather than to take part in the collective farms. There was harsh punishment. But the main reason why there were no mass protest is probably because the living standard of the majority of the soviet population got way better

[Kassad]

Red Resistance, you said that Animal Farmwas a cowardly means of attacking the Soviet Union. I didn't say that Orwell might or might not have been opposed to the Soviet Union and even called for opposition to it, but I'm saying that Animal Farm was not cowardly. It was Orwell's means of stating his disposition with the Soviet Union under Stalin, but the book itself was not cowardly or anti-communist. Just because a book can be used to refute communism does not mean that it was anti-communist in its nature or that it was written for that purpose. Reading comprehension: if only it was on sale where you shopped.

Socialist, I'm an anti-revisionist. I uphold that Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union under him promoted massive industrial development and had it been continued by the working class, it would have promoted revolutionary change and consistent development. I'm not anti-Stalin, but I am merely criticizing those who uncritically support him. No one should be uncritically supported. The standard of living in the Soviet Union rose, as did industrial output and the military strength of the Soviet Union. Of course, I doubt many opposed, as they feared for their lives. Unfortunately, that's directly the point. The proletarian class should not have to live in fear of a ruling class, for if there is a ruling class, there is no socialism.

What I see here from a lot of people is this promotion of black-and-white politics. You either must support Stalin 100%, or you are anti-communist. You must totally support all socialist regimes or you are not a socialist. You must either be totally critical of Stalin or totally uncritical. Life isn't black and white, guys, so stop seeing it that way.

[Cumannach]

You make it seem as if it didn't have flaws under Stalin's leadership when indeed other Anti-Revisionists know that there was flaws under Stalin's leadership.
There are flaws in everything. Perfection doesn't exist in the real world. You want me to go around stating the obvious. No doubt that were significant flaws in Stalin's leadership. I'm be delighted to discuss them, it would be an interesting discussion, but I don't see many around here that have any interest in such a thing- most are only interested in talking about the 1000's of billions killed by Stalin, and how he shot 'all the old bolsheviks'. If silly nonsense like this is the only criticism offered, what can I do?


Feel free to go fuck yourself.

...In this case, Joseph Stalin executed a significant amount of people during the Great Purges. I'm very aware that it couldn't have just been Stalin, since party leadership made such decisions, but he was the figurehead of the party. I guarantee you that most decisions went by his desk before they were approved. A lot of people died and a lot of those people were workers.

...The Great Purge and the subsequent police state measures that followed during that period killed off a significant number of people; not for the benefit of the working class, but to maintain party rule. Of course, suppression of capitalist reactionaries is totally necessary, but instead of, you know, sending fuckers to the labor camps, why not instead continue socialist reforms and gain the support of the working class? Genuine socialism means that the bourgeois is no longer in power and that the working class has taken the reins. The working class was not totally in power, thus it was not a workers state. Stalin was not unconditionally good.

Funny that Stalin saw to it that most of the Bolshevik leaders were killed off. Could this be because they were betraying revolution that they worked their entire lives for? I'm sure they were capitalists in disguise. Maybe Stalin feared the competition? Nonsense!

Really, the only argument that the Purges were widely exaggerated is supported by the Soviet Archives, so of course it's going to deny killings and such. It's one thing when the working class stands strong in the face of adversity and rejects counterrevolution. It's another thing when people are totally erased from history, including former party leaders, to maintain total control. Again, repressing capitalist reactionaries is necessary, but there is an extent to which it becomes elitist and bureaucratic.

Thanks, I understand his impact greatly. I do not believe he upheld Marxism-Leninism to its fullest degree, as they call for a workers state, not a state dominated by an oligarchy. You also need to remember that anti-revisionism means that we uphold Marx and Lenin to the fullest extent....

Feel free to stop making a fucking idiot out of yourself.

"In the Marxist-Leninist movement, an anti-revisionist is one who favors the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, usually stated in this way so as to show direct opposition to the path of Trotskyism, Ultra-Leftism and Revisionist trends of Socialism. Anti-revisionists claim that the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership represented a correct and successful practical implementation of the ideas of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). That does not mean; however, that Anti-Revisionists are completely uncritical of Stalin."

"Anti-revisionism is based on the view that the Soviet Union successfully implemented Marxism-Leninism during approximately the first thirty years of its existence — from the time of the October Revolution until the Secret Speech and peaceful coexistence of 1956."

That's from the statement in the Anti-Revisionist group, the page your tendency links to.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There are flaws in everything. Perfection doesn't exist in the real world. You want me to go around stating the obvious. No doubt that were significant flaws in Stalin's leadership. I'm be delighted to discuss them, it would be an interesting discussion, but I don't see many around here that have any interest in such a thing- most are only interested in talking about the 1000's of billions killed by Stalin, and how he shot 'all the old bolsheviks'. If silly nonsense like this is the only criticism offered, what can I do?

Who ever said I wasn't interested in hearing about Stalin's flaws? I am perfectly aware that there are flaws in his leadership. In fact, I feel there were more flaws in his leadership than good. That however does not make me an Anti-Communist as you so clearly pointed out towards people who are against Stalin.

[Kassad]

From your fucking quote, Cumannach: That does not mean; however, that Anti-Revisionists are completely uncritical of Stalin.

Detective Dipshit: Private ass-clown for hire.

[Invader Zim]

What was a pro-socialist, pro-communist doing drawing up lists of writers for the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit?

And what exactly is so socialist or communist about writing a fable about pigs and farm animals that teaches the lesson of the futility of revolution?


Why do you insist on repeating the same rubbish that has been explained on this board time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1402530&postcount=38), and time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1325896&postcount=69) again?

[Cumannach]

Claiming that Stalin was a mass-murdering tyrant that oppressed the working class and purged all the real communists and deformed the Soviet Union is not criticism, it's revisionism, and for a genuine marxist-leninist, anti-communism.

Man, you really have an emotional attachment to Animal Farm. You'd do well to lose it.

[Kassad]

You act like you calling me a revisionist is going to make my hair fall out. I frankly don't care what someone who appears to put his dick in a blender whenever someone even references a single potentially negative thing Stalin did. What you have done by ignoring all my points is claim that:
1) Everyone who was killed during Stalin's purges deserved to die and the progress of socialism required massive destruction of life.
2) Joseph Stalin had the interests of the working class totally in mind and all police state measures were totally necessary.
3) Industrial innovation is imperative, whereas human life is secondary.

You've spent a good three or so posts totally ignoring the bulk of my posts, and instead insist on calling me a revisionist and telling me I worship Animal Farm, when in truth, it appears you cannot even acknowledge a single criticism of Stalin, as you assume he was a totally perfect leader who deserves idolization; any and all criticism of him being anti-communist and revisionist. So, Detective, since you've done such a good job earning that title, why don't you save your sectarian pouting for later and address some of the very real points that people have been bringing up?

[Invader Zim]

Claiming that Stalin was a mass-murdering tyrant that oppressed the working class and purged all the real communists and deformed the Soviet Union is not criticism,

Indeed it isn't, it is historical fact.

[Angry Young Man]

Even so, workers are portrayed as animals.

Because animals are in a weaker position. What other allegory could have worked as well?

[MarxSchmarx]

OK, the whole revisionist/stalinist thing has stopped being much about animal farm.

So I've split a couple of the latest posts from a few days ago here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/moved-animal-farm-t107851/index.html?t=107851

If you want to reference animal farm in your political analysis do it there, whereas if you want to reference your political analysis in your discussion of animal farm, do it here.

[The Author]

Orwell's book was not an attack on revolution. If you paid attention to one goddamn word of the book, you'd see that before Snowball's forced exile, he supported claiming more apples for the pigs. That is an obvious display that Orwell would not have been surprised to see Snowball, who is a portrayal of Trotsky, to become corrupted and elitist as well. There is not one sentence in the book that says revolution is futile, but merely that a bureaucratic or elitist oligarchy will likely be the critical component that brings down revolutionary struggle. He displayed that the pigs became the new ruling class, which they did, in a sense. If there isn't total workers control, there is no socialism and there will never be communism. Your consistent, uncritical defense of Stalin's state apparatus is appaling even to me, one of the most adamant supporters of anti-revisionism and Joseph Stalin.

The theme of "Animal Farm" is that every time there is a revolution or some kind of attempt to overthrow the old order, the effort backfires and the society degenerates back into the corrupt system which it started out as, but worse. A similar theme can be found in "Nineteen Eighty-Four," when O'Brien shatters the hopes of Winston in thinking that the proles can lead the way to changing the system; that in fact, the system will remain. To sum up Orwell: "the more things change, the more they stay the same." History is nothing but a Vicious Cycle.

There's a difference between having an apparatus, and fighting the bureaucracy which can choke that apparatus. We don't seek to destroy the apparatus, but improve upon it- a theme Lenin upheld.

[MikeSC]

The theme of "Animal Farm" is that every time there is a revolution or some kind of attempt to overthrow the old order, the effort backfires and the society degenerates back into the corrupt system which it started out as, but worse. A similar theme can be found in "Nineteen Eighty-Four," when O'Brien shatters the hopes of Winston in thinking that the proles can lead the way to changing the system; that in fact, the system will remain. To sum up Orwell: "the more things change, the more they stay the same." History is nothing but a Vicious Cycle.

There's a difference between having an apparatus, and fighting the bureaucracy which can choke that apparatus. We don't seek to destroy the apparatus, but improve upon it- a theme Lenin upheld.

The appendix in 1984 is written as an account of the system from a point in the future when it has been overthrown. I took it to be a warning against fatalistic hegemony, rather than fatalism as the point of it.

And acknowledging the faults of revolutions isn't to deny revolution. That is a pro-revolution stance- a diagnosis of it's problems is the first step to making it work.

[TheWaffleCzar]

I fail to see how anybody reading animal farm could come to the conclusion capitalism is good! regardless of whether they are high school kidsor not.

Well if you have a crazy teacher who doesn't understand anything and is in a nutshell, batshit insane (similar to my English teacher. . .), than its possible that she could have made totalitarianism synonymous to communism and brainwashed the entire class. I can't tell you how many nights I spent crossing out words on her questions where she said Lenin or Marx and meant Stalin, or said communism and meant totalitarianism. It is not a fun experience when the teacher knows nothing about communism.

[The Author]

The appendix in 1984 is written as an account of the system from a point in the future when it has been overthrown. I took it to be a warning against fatalistic hegemony, rather than fatalism as the point of it.

What edition are you referring to? I have a Signet Classic Penguin Books paperback, and the appendix in there refers to the evolution of Newspeak. I saw no references to the system being overthrown; rather, I saw a description of how the English language evolved into Newspeak and how Newspeak replaced English entirely from 1984 to 2050.

It was a warning against fatalistic hegemony, but in my opinion, reading "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Animal Farm," I saw the theme of fatalism as well. No matter how hard one tries, any effort to call for social change will inevitably backfire and result in a tyranny as bad as the previous system, or worse. Maybe this was not Orwell's intent- what Orwell's real intent was is subject to much interpretation. But clearly, reading anti-communist literature from memoirs of defectors and dissidents of communist countries, to fiction, and to historical and political accounts, and the fact that their styles often imitate Orwell, I get the impression that fatalism really is the theme.

[MikeSC]

What edition are you referring to? I have a Signet Classic Penguin Books paperback, and the appendix in there refers to the evolution of Newspeak. I saw no references to the system being overthrown; rather, I saw a description of how the English language evolved into Newspeak and how Newspeak replaced English entirely from 1984 to 2050.Yeah, that's the one- it's an account of it as if it's something of the past. I haven't read it in years, though (and I may only have got that interpretation from reading some one else give it before I'd read that bit.)

Anyway, I still think that it as as Orwell intended it to be- a warning against the corruption of socialism, whether in Stalinism (as in Animal Farm) or Fascism like Mosley's New Party (as in 1984).

[pastradamus]

Animal Farm was obviously not meant to be an in-depth analysis (it's a fable, after all), but an impression. As such, it's a very clever and extremely poignant book.

What keeps amazing me is that towards the end of the book, Orwell virtually predicts 'Revisionism' (including 'peaceful coexistence') and the eventual return to full-blown capitalism - and it was written in 1945! Makes you think, doesn't it?

Absolutely!

The genius of Orwell is something which as a writer will forever be to his credit. His simplistic (orwellian code) way of writing - that is to say that he used small words instead of big words where possible, gave him a real engagement with his captive audiences. Everybody who can read, can read Orwell.

I think Nero makes a good point here when he speaks of orwell's revisionist prediction but lets us not forget what else he predicted. The Big brother surveillance of society by the government was a HUGE, HUGE thing to predict - and to be proven correct (Orwell "1984")

Another thing he successfully predicted was the manner in which these governments propagated their lies and slogans in the format of "War is peace, Slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength" - A saying applicable to UK/US foreign and domestic policy.

[Invader Zim]

The theme of "Animal Farm" is that every time there is a revolution or some kind of attempt to overthrow the old order, the effort backfires and the society degenerates back into the corrupt system which it started out as, but worse.

I'm all for differen't readings of a text, but, short of a highly post-modern approach, a reading has to actually be based on the words the author penned. Your 'interpretation' of the work is completely at odds with what the book actually says. At no stage, not one, does Orwell suggest that all revolutions are destined to degeneration, the story is a specific commentary about the degeneration of the revolution in the USSR. Orwell's work is actually highly positive when it comes to the idea of revolution and socialism generally.

[Brother No. 1]

Orwell virtually predicts 'Revisionism' (including 'peaceful coexistence') and the eventual return to full-blown capitalism

Well he guessed it right. Revisionism borught the downfall of the Soviet Union, and everyother Socialist state exepct Cuba, and now Capitalism thrives. and people say Revisionism didnt case the fall....

[communard resolution]

Well he guessed it right. Revisionism borught the downfall of the Soviet Union, and everyother Socialist state exepct Cuba, and now Capitalism thrives. and people say Revisionism didnt case the fall....

You misunderstood. The fact that he predicted Revisionism as early as 1945 would suggest that Revisionism wasn't a sudden, 'clean break' with everything that went before. Anti-revisionists tend to blame the return to capitalism on a bunch of evil Breshnevite gangsters who came out of the blue, took over, and turned everything to shit by sheer force of will and maliciousness. They see no faults in the political system that preceded the Revisionist era. To them, everything was just dandy until some shady characters showed up and ruined it for everyone - it's an evil-men theory that I find very hard to believe.

It seems that some people saw it all coming decades before it happened. Why?

[вор в законе]

I've read 1984. I liked it. Orwell though was an opportunist.

[Brother No. 1]

It seems that some people saw it all coming decades before it happened. Why?

They may have guessed, may have saw that Stalin wouldnt last long, saw that maybe the Soviets werent trusting each other and that they were going to Revise the whole goverment its self after the last leader steped down or died. Do we know? No not really.



Anti-revisionists tend to blame the return to capitalism on a bunch of evil Breshnevite gangsters who came out of the blue, took over, and turned everything to shit by sheer force of will and maliciousness.


I believe Nika,when he denouced Stalin and started the "Peacful co-existance", started the Revisionist Era. With trying to "Peaceful co-exist" he also allowed some Western thinking into the Eastern European and Soviet Citizen mind. They started to think about how peoples lives were in the west and how their lives were in the East. They thought that they'd be better and be greater with Capitalism. It started with Nika and ended with Gorby.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I do not know if this has been posted before, but Orwell's Intoduction to Animal Farm was not published with the first edition because of what he had to say.

You can read it here:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Angry:


What other allegory could have worked as well?

I've no idea, but that just underlines the literary (and political) weakness of allegory.

[khad]

I've read 1984. I liked it. Orwell though was an opportunist.
Plagiarized:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/features/story.php?story_id=15584


Orwell is also under attack these days after revelations that he gave the British Foreign Office a list of people he considered communists and fellow travelers, and others he described as Jews and homosexuals.

Reed, 33, eventually discovered an even more interesting fact, which he says he wishes he had known when he did the BBC interview: Orwell may have plagiarized the story.

“The Animal Riot” was written by Russian author Nikolai Kostomarov from 1879 to 1880, but not published until 1917. In the book, the animals revolt against their human oppressors and defeat them, but are unable to run their own affairs successfully.

The two works have remarkable parallels with similar key speeches. Reed says he thinks it’s fine to keep on reworking a good story.

[khad]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1998/sep1998/orw-s09.shtml


When a new 20-volume edition of the collected works of George Orwell appeared about two months ago, included among the books, essays and voluminous correspondence of the famed British writer and journalist who died nearly 50 years ago was a list of some 130 prominent figures he compiled in 1949. The list consisted of short comments, sometimes pithy and sometimes superficial, on intellectuals, politicians and others whom Orwell considered to be sympathetic to the Stalinist regime in Moscow. Among the names were cultural figures Charlie Chaplin and Paul Robeson, writers J.B. Priestley and Stephen Spender, journalist Walter Duranty (New York Times Moscow correspondent and defender of the Moscow Trials) and Joseph Davies, US Ambassador to the USSR during WWII.http://www.counterpunch.org/waraich09062005.html


Ironically, Orwell did endure both poverty and war, while love proved more elusive. It was at Arthur Koestler's home in Wales, in 1946, that George Orwell met Celia Kirwan, Koestler's sister-in-law. Kirwan had been an editorial assistant for two publications that Orwell had contributed to, so they had a professional connection too. But there was more to Kirwan; at the time, she served as a functionary for the Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), an outfit supervised by MI6 (a branch of the British intelligence services).

Orwell became positively besotted with Kirwan. In fact the poor guy even proposed to her, only to be spurned. But Orwell swiftly swallowed the snub, and furnished Celia Kirwan with a detailed list of Communists and fellow-travelers *deemed "security risks"-that was thick with suspicion. Upon reading the list one encounters curious remarks in brackets beside each name. For starters, the historian Isaac Deutscher is described as a "(Polish Jew)". Similarly, Orwell feels compelled to ascertain whether Charlie Chaplin is Jewish or not: "(Jewish?)". Paul Robeson is disdainfully considered "very anti-white". And George Padmore, a former Communist Party member, is a "Negro. African origin?" This possibly upset Orwell because, in his terribly limited worldview, it apparently meant that the "main emphasis" of Padmore's politics was "anti-white".

[khad]

Orwell the rapist:

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/buddicom-memoir-postscript.htm


Eric & Us: The Postscript
by Kathryn Hughes
Guardian, 17 February 2007

Jacintha Buddicom and George Orwell were childhood soul mates who lost touch until he was dying. A new postscript to her genteel memoir sheds a disturbing light on their friendship...


But Venables's postscript changes all that. Venables is the Buddicoms' first cousin, and was left the copyright to Eric & Us, as well as 57 crates of family letters. From these she made the shocking discovery that, in 1921, Eric had tried to rape Jacintha. Previously the young couple had kissed, but now, during a late summer walk, he had wanted more. At only five feet to his six feet and four inches, Jacintha had shouted, screamed and kicked before running home with a torn skirt and bruised hip. It was "this" rather than any gradual parting of the ways that explains why Jacintha broke off all contact with her childhood friend, never to learn that he had transformed himself into George Orwell.

[khad]

Maybe you should read those articles before posting them?:rolleyes:
I don't care about WSWS's ideological contortions. I only care about the fact that he was a goddamn informant and scoundrel.


Attacking the person is called ad hominem and does not negate his views in any way.

If he hadn't turned traitor, I might give a shit, but no. Informants are one of the lowest forms of humanity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good discussion here:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/animal-farm/

[New Tet]

Ever since I could read well enough to understand complex ideas, I've admired Orwell and his works. The only novel of his I've never read is "Keep the Aspidistra Flying".
I very much enjoyed Animal Farm when I read it so many, many years ago but my favorite Orwell novel is "Burmese Days". The pathos in that novel is almost unbearable!

I think Orwell's intent in Animal Farm was not just to attack Stalinism but also to dispel any illusions the reader may have about capitalism's opposition to it. In the end of that fable we see the animals, watching the pigs and the humans in conference, unable to distinguish between the two.

I interpret that to mean that Orwell thought that there was little substantive difference between those who ran capitalism and those who sat atop the Soviet state.

[communard resolution]

I think Orwell's intent in Animal Farm was not just to attack Stalinism but also to dispel any illusions the reader may have about capitalism's opposition to it. In the end of that fable we see the animals, watching the pigs and the humans in conference, unable to distinguish between the two.

This becomes even clearer in Homage To Catalonia, where he describes how the Soviet Union and the official Communist Parties did their damnedest to prevent real revolution and workers control in the days of the Spanish Civil War, and instead tried to turn Spain into just another bourgeois 'democracy' - mainly to appease capitalist/imperialist countries such as France, which the USSR were on good terms with at the time and whose goodwill they depended upon economically (officially because "the time was not ripe" for revolution in Spain and bourgeois democracy the next desirable step on the long and winding road towards 'socialism' - it's all dialectics, comrades...).

After the Spanish experience, Orwell never again thought of the USSR and the official Communist Parties as socialist. On the contrary, he regarded them as anti-socialist, counterrevolutionary, anti-worker forces.

[khad]

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/ctc/docs/estbsts.htm


Esteemed Beasts
The Economist, 23 July 1988

WHEN George Orwell called Animal Farm "the only one of my books I really sweated over", did he protest too much? Mr Igor Zakharov, a Moscow book, hound, thinks he may have done. He has turned up another story in which farmyard animals revolt against man, defeat him, and try unsuccessfully to run their own affairs; but this is "The Animal Riot", written in 1879-80 by Nikolai Kostomarov, an obscure Russian historian.

Mr Zakharov remembered Kostomarov when "Animal Farm" was published recently in a Lithuanian magazine. This was its first publication in the Soviet Union, although the book is well enough known there. Orwell's thinly veiled fable of the corruption of power in general and the shortcomings of Marxism in particular is treated, by Russians, as a non-specific satire on bureaucracy everywhere. Now they may have the extra reassurance of believing they thought it up first.

Had Orwell read Kostomarov? The two works have remarkable parallels. From Kostomarov, a speech by the Bull:

Brother bulls, sisters and cow-wives. Esteemed beasts worthy of a better destiny than the one which inexplicably befell you and made you a slave of tyrant Man! ... The hour has come to cast of vile slavery and take revenge for all our ancestors tormented by work, starved and fed repulsive feed, who collapsed dead under whips and heavy carts, who were killed at slaughterhouses and torn to pieces by our tormentors. Rally with hooves and horns.

From Orwell, a speech by the Major, an old boar (usually read as Lenin):

Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let's face it: our lives are miserable, laborious and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength ... Why do we then continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word-Man.

[communard resolution]

Great minds think alike. :thumbup1:

Seriously, though - your charge of plagiarism is quite trivial. So what if Orwell took the basic premise (an animal rebellion against oppressive humans) and updated it with regards to everything that had happened up until 1945? I don't find that illigitemate, and it doesn't lessen the impact or relevance of his version. The story of Dr. Faustus selling his soul to the devil has been the premise of dozens of novels. Does that make Goethe's "Faust" (which wasn't the 'original') less of a masterpiece?

[Il Medico]

I read this book by George Orwell again. I know Orwell was a socialist and this book was meant to parody Stalin. I have noticed some people here defend Stalin, which I have never seen before. I'm wondering what people think of Orwell and was he right in his portrayal of Stalin?
Good writer. And yes.

[Cumannach]

I'm sick of you conspiracy nuts. Why would the newspapers print it if it wasn't true.

[Random Precision]

Had Orwell read Kostomarov? The two works have remarkable parallels.

Has Animal Riot ever been translated into English? Because I don't think Orwell ever read Russian, and I'm having trouble finding copies of it online, though it may be out of print.

EDIT: I'm only finding about 100 pages on Google that refer to the terms "Animal Riot" + "Nikolai Kostomarov", one of which is this RevLeft thread, and all the references to it seem to come from just two or three sources. As best I can figure out, it was a short story by Kostomarov, which wasn't published until long after his death and has never, as far as I can tell, been translated. Though that wouldn't preclude Orwell from having taken the idea, perhaps someone he knew had read it for instance.

[Old Man Diogenes]

And what exactly is so socialist or communist about writing a fable about pigs and farm animals that teaches the lesson of the futility of revolution?

He was writing, as in 1984, about the futility of revolution when the people are not in control and when the revolution is lead by totalitarian bueracrats who only seek power for themselves. :p

[Old Man Diogenes]

Why would the newspapers print it if it wasn't true.

I'm sorry, but not only are you a Stalinist, your also so naive as to assume everything written in the newspaper is true? :confused: