Animal Farm

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I just read it, and I thought it was pretty clever. What are the general opinions of it here on RevLeft?

[Proukunin]

I was written by George Orwell. Who served in the Spanish Civil War for the communists. Ive personally never read it, but it was an assigned reader when I was in high school and I know little about it. Isnt it a take on Totalitarianism in general?

[JerryBiscoTrey]

I was written by George Orwell. Who served in the Spanish Civil War for the communists. Ive personally never read it, but it was an assigned reader when I was in high school and I know little about it. Isnt it a take on Totalitarianism in general?

It was an attack against Stalinism and the USSR. Pretty dumb book in my opinion and written by a man who had never set foot in the USSR

[Lunatic Concept]

It uses the animals to act as a metaphor for the different groups that took part in and were affected by the revolution, and uses this to show the degeneration of the farm from utopia to brutal stalinist dictatorship. Its a good read, and at about 120 pages, why not read it? :)

[Rooster]

I was written by George Orwell. Who served in the Spanish Civil War for the communists. Ive personally never read it, but it was an assigned reader when I was in high school and I know little about it. Isnt it a take on Totalitarianism in general?

Orwell fought for the POUM, not the Russian backed communist party.

Animal Farm a thinly disguised attack against Stalin. It's not surprising that most Stalinists have a distaste for it. It is a good read though. Like all of Orwell's stuff.

[Property Is Robbery]

Any Stalinist on this site will put the book down as well as Orwell. Personally I like it although it is very simple. I didn't think it was an attack against the USSR, just Stalin and his policies.

[Rooster]

Any Stalinist on this site will put the book down as well as Orwell. Personally I like it although it is very simple. I didn't think it was an attack against the USSR, just Stalin and his policies.

It's simple because it's supposed to a parody of a children's story. More or less.

Orwell states in one of the prefaces of Animal Farm something along the lines that he was against what he saw as the Stalinist corruption of real socialist values.

[Chairman Wow]

I quite liked it... Regardless of the presumed allegory.

[Proukunin]

Orwell fought for the POUM, not the Russian backed communist party.

Animal Farm a thinly disguised attack against Stalin. It's not surprising that most Stalinists have a distaste for it. It is a good read though. Like all of Orwell's stuff.


I figured that's why Stalinists didnt like it. I knew he fought for the POUM, but they were still a communist party.

[Rooster]

I figured that's why Stalinists didnt like it. I knew he fought for the POUM, but they were still a communist party.

Well, they have been broadly along the same lines in the civil war, but if you read Homage to Catalonia, you'll get a better picture. The book itself is a riveting account of the Spanish civil war and I highly, highly recommend it. It also gives a political side note at the end. The POUM were a Trotskyist organisation, more or less, with links to the Independent Labour er Party(?) in the UK. I'm not sure what they were called, to be honest. It's been a while since I've looked into it. But they were all nearly rounded up by the Stalin backed communists or denied the meagre arms and munitions. Orwell himself was almost arrested, he says, and there's general dislike for the communists by Orwell and the POUM members. Anyway, Orwell himself was against both Trotsky and Stalin and thought the infighting between them was one of the reasons why the Spanish civil war was won by Franco.

I'm sure someone else will give you a more indepth picture if you asked. My memory isn't the best and it's late in the day for me.

[praxis1966]

It uses the animals to act as a metaphor for the different groups that took part in and were affected by the revolution, and uses this to show the degeneration of the farm from utopia to brutal stalinist dictatorship. Its a good read, and at about 120 pages, why not read it? :)

I'm definitely no Stalinist, but I hated it. The metaphoric symbolism is about as wafer thin and low brow as that of an Andrew Lloyd Webber opera. It's just piss poor literature IMO. Anyway, why the umpteen millionth thread on this novel? Why not just necro one of the other dozens? Search function, people, search function.

[Fawkes]

I haven't read it in years, but if I did read it again, I feel I would be inclined to agree with praxis. I'm all for ripping on Stalin, it's not exactly hard to do and he's well deserving of it, but I generally like my metaphors slightly more veiled.

[mosfeld]

George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html) is a very good read concerning George Orwell.

The American Party of Labor also wrote a very good piece called Trotskyism: A History of Betrayal (http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-american-party-of-labor.html), which dedicates a section to George Orwell.


George Orwell's List

To this day, it is still a practice of students in imperialist countries to be forced to read the mediocre novels of another Trotskyite, George Orwell, whom of course is always widely read and praised by Trotskyites not on the basis of art, but on the sheer basis of crude anti-communism. His writings Animal Farm and 1984 are still taken as an absolute dogma regarding the Soviet Union. The two fictional novels are taken as a realistic portrayal of what life under communism was truly like. This is in spite of Orwell admitting himself: “I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers” (Orwell 366). The anti-Soviet and anti-communist streak of ultra-leftists with Trotskyite leanings such Orwell continues here unabated. After fighting in the Spanish Civil War with P.O.U.M. faction, Orwell fled Spain and submitted names of people he thought were to be communist sympathizers to the British Intelligence service and gave names of people he thought could be trusted to write anti-communist propaganda.

Timothy Garton Ash, a writer for The New York Review of Books, was given access to the archives of the British Foreign Office and was allowed to see the original list. He wrote that “[t]here are 135 names in all…” (Ash). Of the list of his former comrades he betrayed to the British imperialists, ash notes that they were “especially important to anticommunist leftists like Orwell who were convinced, as he himself wrote, ‘that the destruction of the Soviet myth [is] essential if we want to revive the Socialist movement’” (Ash). This list was assembled at the request of the British government.

“[O]n March 29, Celia came to visit him in Glouces-tershire; but she also came with a mission. She was working for this new department of the Foreign Office, trying to counter the assault waves of communist propaganda emanating from Stalin’s recently founded Comin- form. Could he help? As she recorded in her official memorandum of their meeting, Orwell ‘expressed his whole-hearted and enthusiastic approval of our aims’” (Ash). This was the same “Celia,” a British agent, whom “Robert Conquest, the veteran chronicler of Soviet terror, […] shared an office with Celia Kirwan and himself fell ‘madly in love’ with her” (Ash).

Notably, Ash reported that George Orwell felt the need to ethnically identify his communist and pro-Soviet comrades for the benefit of their enemies. “One aspect of the notebook that shocks our contemporary sensibility is his ethnic labeling of people, especially the eight variations of ‘Jewish?’ (Charlie Chaplin), ‘Polish Jew,’ ‘English Jew,’ or ‘Jewess’” (Ash). Fittingly enough, one of the benefits Orwell received for writing and submitting the list was promotion of his work by both the British government and the CIA:

“In Orwell’s case, [British Intelligence department IRD] supported Burmese, Chinese, and Arabic editions of his Animal Farm, commissioned a rather crude strip-cartoon version of the same book (giving the pig Major a Lenin beard, and the pig Napoleon a Stalin moustache, in case simple-minded readers didn’t get the point), and organized showings in ‘backward’ areas of the British Commonwealth of a CIA-financed—and politically distorted—animated film of Animal Farm” (Ash).

[Princess Luna]

i never got what the fuck is up with Stalinists always calling Trotskyists "Trotskyites"

[Imposter Marxist]

Reguardless of the book's message or intentions, which can be debated, there is no doubt that it was used as a brutal attack on Communism, Socialism, and the Left in general.

[Rooster]

By the bye, Orwell was never claimed to be, and took an active dislike, to that whole "Trotskyite" thing. There's a hint of paranoia in those articles.


Reguardless of the book's message or intentions, which can be debated, there is no doubt that it was used as a brutal attack on Communism, Socialism, and the Left in general.

I think it's pretty clear to what Orwell thought and the ideas of the book were really simple. Orwell thought that Stalin was the one that was attacking socialism. So I don't think it can be debated. What can be debated is why you and he differ in opinion.

[Fawkes]

Reguardless of the book's message or intentions, which can be debated, there is no doubt that it was used as a brutal attack on Communism, Socialism, and the Left in general.

Yeah, that is true, but if you're holding that against the book itself (which maybe you're not), that's pretty stupid, things get misconstrued and twisted all the time, it doesn't reflect on the actual book itself.

[Robespierre Richard]

Yeah, that is true, but if you're holding that against the book itself (which maybe you're not), that's pretty stupid, things get misconstrued and twisted all the time, it doesn't reflect on the actual book itself.

A book is not without its author.

[Sixiang]

I am a "Stalinist", as some like to call it, and I liked this book. I actually enjoy Orwell's writings quite a bit and have read a lot of his books. I would not say that Animal Farm is his best by any means. I read it in junior high, found it clever and enjoyable, put it aside, and moved on. I will say this, if it wasn't for that book, I may never have moved on to leftism and (ironically) to support Stalin. Animal Farm was the first book I ever read by a socialist that dealt with Soviet history, and it got me curious about Soviet history. My interest in Animal Farm caused me to read 1984, which caused me to question all the leaders and established ideas in my life. 1984 caused me to read The Road to Wigan Pier, which caused me to be more interested in socialism and to read The Communist Manifesto. It all spirals out from there for me with reading more of Marx and Engels' works. 7 months or so later, I started to consider myself a communist and I joined revleft. It's interesting how a "Trotskyist" work's influence on me could ultimately lead me to become a "Stalinist" 4 or 5 years later.

To be honest, when I read it originally, and then re-read it a year ago, I simply found the whole idea of this "fairy tale" scenario with talking animals taking over a farm and engaging in bloody warfare and conflict with humans to be clever, funny, and interesting.


By the bye, Orwell was never claimed to be, and took an active dislike, to that whole "Trotskyite" thing.
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, he considered himself more of a social dem than a Trotskyist per say. I know he supported the British Labour Party for years.

[psgchisolm]

I am a "Stalinist", as some like to call it, and I liked this book. I actually enjoy Orwell's writings quite a bit and have read a lot of his books. I would not say that Animal Farm is his best by any means. I read it in junior high, found it clever and enjoyable, put it aside, and moved on. I will say this, if it wasn't for that book, I may never have moved on to leftism and (ironically) to support Stalin. Animal Farm was the first book I ever read by a socialist that dealt with Soviet history, and it got me curious about Soviet history. My interest in Animal Farm caused me to read 1984, which caused me to question all the leaders and established ideas in my life. 1984 caused me to read The Road to Wigan Pier, which caused me to be more interested in socialism and to read The Communist Manifesto. It all spirals out from there for me with reading more of Marx and Engels' works. 7 months or so later, I started to consider myself a communist and I joined revleft. It's interesting how a "Trotskyist" work's influence on me could ultimately lead me to become a "Stalinist" 4 or 5 years later.

To be honest, when I read it originally, and then re-read it a year ago, I simply found the whole idea of this "fairy tale" scenario with talking animals taking over a farm and engaging in bloody warfare and conflict with humans to be clever, funny, and interesting.


Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, he considered himself more of a social dem than a Trotskyist per say. I know he supported the British Labour Party for years.
Wikipedia has him labeled as a Democratic Soc. If I remember correctly he hated all forms of Totalitarianism.

[28350]

i never got what the fuck is up with Stalinists always calling Trotskyists "Trotskyites"

Trotskyite is a pejorative. "-ite" means "follower of". It's a way of marginalizing Trotskyists as a whole as some sort of sect.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's an allegory to the Russian Revolution which takes an anti-Stalinist, or factual as I call it, approach.

Great read, very interesting, overall amazing book.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, he considered himself more of a social dem than a Trotskyist per say. I know he supported the British Labour Party for years.
As psgchisolm said, he actually considered himself a democratic socialist, although he was not at all opposed to revolution (as he demonstrates in Homage To Catalonia). Also, his support was for most of his career lent to the Independent Labour Party rather than the Labour Party, an independent organisation which was affiliated with the Labour Party from 1906 to 1932, functioning as a left-wing alternative to the main party leadership, and was independent thereafter. However, Orwell left the party in 1939 because of its opposition to WW2 on pacifistic grounds, and remained unaffiliated with any party for the remainder of his life (although offered support to Labour in his position as editor of Tribune, a paper traditionally associated with the left-wing of the Labour Party).

[Sixiang]

Wikipedia has him labeled as a Democratic Soc. If I remember correctly he hated all forms of Totalitarianism.
Yeah, that is pretty much how I would label him.


As psgchisolm said, he actually considered himself a democratic socialist, although he was not at all opposed to revolution (as he demonstrates in Homage To Catalonia). Also, his support was for most of his career lent to the Independent Labour Party rather than the Labour Party, an independent organisation which was affiliated with the Labour Party from 1906 to 1932, functioning as a left-wing alternative to the main party leadership, and was independent thereafter. However, Orwell left the party in 1939 because of its opposition to WW2 on pacifistic grounds, and remained unaffiliated with any party for the remainder of his life (although offered support to Labour in his position as editor of Tribune, a paper traditionally associated with the left-wing of the Labour Party).
Sounds about right.

[RATM-Eubie]

It was an attack against Stalinism and the USSR. Pretty dumb book in my opinion and written by a man who had never set foot in the USSR

Of course you hated it..... And you set foot in the USSR under Stalin?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

[Unclebananahead]

Isn't anyone going to respond to the charges of Orwell providing information regarding communists to the British government? I'm no fan of Stalin, or Stalinism, but that strikes me as going too far.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Of course you hated it..... And you set foot in the USSR under Stalin?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

No i never set foot in the USSR under Stalin. Hence, i'm not qualified to write a metaphorical book about life in the USSR under Stalin............

[Pretty Flaco]

No i never set foot in the USSR under Stalin. Hence, i'm not qualified to write a metaphorical book about life in the USSR under Stalin............

It's just a comical (albeit very dry) commentary on what he believed after reading on Russia. It's not a history textbook.

[Tim Finnegan]

No i never set foot in the USSR under Stalin. Hence, i'm not qualified to write a metaphorical book about life in the USSR under Stalin............
Which would suggest that no-one living is entitled to discuss the trans-Atlantic slave trade in anything but the driest and most academic manner, which I find... Questionable.

[Pretty Flaco]

Which would suggest that no-one living is entitled to discuss the trans-Atlantic slave trade in anything but the driest and most academic manner, which I find... Questionable.

He's suggesting something entirely different: the time has come to construct a time machine!

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Which would suggest that no-one living is entitled to discuss the trans-Atlantic slave trade in anything but the driest and most academic manner, which I find... Questionable.

Okay good point but you must agree that the history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade is a much more black and white topic. Dont get me wrong, i know there were many nuances but i think we can agree that the USSR under Stalin is a much more debatable topic than that of the Slave trade; even if your not a Stalinist


It's just a comical (albeit very dry) commentary on what he believed after reading on Russia. It's not a history textbook.

Well it is being taught in history classes that it is a brilliant and accurate allegory to the USSR; not that its comical. Not that i'd expect anything other than that. But like i said earlier, i just think it was kinda stupid (the OP asked for our opinion) even before i was into Communism.


He's suggesting something entirely different: the time has come to construct a time machine!

Thats exactly what i was getting at! :D

[Agent Ducky]

I personally really liked Animal Farm. It was one of my first exposures to communism and the Russian Revolution and probably helped fuel my eventual fascination with it all...

[Tim Finnegan]

Okay good point but you must agree that the history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade is a much more black and white topic. Dont get me wrong, i know there were many nuances but i think we can agree that the USSR under Stalin is a much more debatable topic than that of the Slave trade; even if your not a Stalinist
True, but to actually engage with the very human misery of that institution, to go beyond a condemnation derived from a far-detached tallying of abstract oppressions, then one has to indulge in the very presumption you condemn, and insert oneself into an experience which has never been your own. That the tallying of the Soviet Union is more complicated, if anything, makes this personal engagement more necessary, not less so.


Well it is being taught in history classes that it is a brilliant and accurate allegory to the USSR; not that its comical. Not that i'd expect anything other than that. But like i said earlier, i just think it was kinda stupid (the OP asked for our opinion) even before i was into Communism.This is quite true. It's a fair enough piece in an English class- it is, whatever one thinks of it as an artistic piece, a pretty decent introduction to the use of satirical literature- but any consciously ideological piece should not be used as a history text.

Incidentally, am I the only who despises with a burning passion the live action adaptation they put out a few years ago? Where Napoleon's regime collapses, for some reason, and they invite some new (unnervingly Aryan) humans back? And this is supposed to be a good thing? Kind of letting your ideology show their, fellas, and it's not flattering...

[Agent Ducky]

Agreed with above poster that it shouldn't be used to teach history but is fair game to be looked at as satire in an English class. I think anything that has that much opinion put into it shouldn't be considered for history class unless it's being used to look at perspectives on certain subjects.

[praxis1966]

Okay good point but you must agree that the history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade is a much more black and white topic. Dont get me wrong, i know there were many nuances but i think we can agree that the USSR under Stalin is a much more debatable topic than that of the Slave trade; even if your not a Stalinist

Emphasis added just to point out what seems a poor word choice... I'm not accusing you of anything so don't get it twisted, just sayin' 'n' shit, lulz...

Anyway, I personally don't think there's any debate to be had as far as the CCCP under Stalin is concerned. My attitude it is that it was a fundamentally antidemocratic, totalitarian, barbaric, anti-working class state predicated on slave labor and gross human rights violations. To me, if someone were to say, "Yeah, Stalin was an asshole, but he did X, Y, and Z which were beneficial to the country," is like saying, "Yeah, Hitler was an asshole, but you have to agree that Volkswagen and the autobahn were good things so you have to give him that." It just doesn't make sense to me, end of story.


Agreed with above poster that it shouldn't be used to teach history but is fair game to be looked at as satire in an English class. I think anything that has that much opinion put into it shouldn't be considered for history class unless it's being used to look at perspectives on certain subjects.

Orwell's personal opinions aside, I don't think it should ever be taught in history classes because it's such a shallow treatment. No way you can possibly cover all the given eventualities of an era of history spanning multiple decades in 120 pages.

[Agent Ducky]

Yeah. It's over-simplified and could easily lead to misinformation if taken as serious historical literature.

[PhoenixAsh]

Isn't anyone going to respond to the charges of Orwell providing information regarding communists to the British government? I'm no fan of Stalin, or Stalinism, but that strikes me as going too far.

yes it is...absolutely.

He considered them however, to be a real danger to socialism and socialists. That justfied his betrayel for him. In his mind he was not betraying socialists but rather authoritarian anti-socialists.

[Gears]

Animal Farm is a good book for young teens, but to be taken as a good metaphorical and literary allusion, then I would say probably do not look to this novel.

1984 was much better, in my opinion, and written better.

[Unclebananahead]

yes it is...absolutely.

He considered them however, to be a real danger to socialism and socialists. That justfied his betrayel for him. In his mind he was not betraying socialists but rather authoritarian anti-socialists.

All of my considerations of Orwell and his works, however glowing, are characterized by this betrayal. I still remember with fondness reading Animal Farm and 1984 as a teenager (and not for any class mind you), but ever since I learned that he 'ratted out' communists -- even if they were of a variety he disliked -- I can't but help having a rather low opinion of him.

[Rooster]

Isn't anyone going to respond to the charges of Orwell providing information regarding communists to the British government? I'm no fan of Stalin, or Stalinism, but that strikes me as going too far.

I'm not defending the action but it's not as black and white as that from Orwell's point of view. If you read Homage to Catalonia Orwell says that the Stalin backed communists arrested, denied arms and probably killed nealy all of his friends in the POUM, hindered the effort of the war and pretty much betrayed the revolution there. He was anti-Stalinist and I think (I haven't researched this but) all of the people he listed were Stalinist supporters. So when people say that he was anti-commnunist then that's wrong. He was anti-Stalinist and being Stalinist does not equal a Communist, at least to his eyes.

Anyway, I don't think it was right to rat out people to the state for whatever reason. But I don't think the people on the list were arrested or denied anything anyway, were they? I don't think Orwell would have ratted those people out to say Franco's regime if he was living under it.

I don'd like his love of tradition nor his sometimes very upper class attitudes towards people (making working class people dress up for dinner) but he did write some good books.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that 'Animal Farm' is a clever book. I don't think that that's a good thing, though, tbh. To be fair, I'm generally not much of a fan of extended allegories.

[RadioRaheem84]

yes it is...absolutely.

He considered them however, to be a real danger to socialism and socialists. That justfied his betrayel for him. In his mind he was not betraying socialists but rather authoritarian anti-socialists.

I highly doubt any of the communists he outed were anywhere near turning the UK into a 'Stalinist hell hole' or plotting to do so.

He outed them based upon his experiences in Spain, which is understandable, but still pretty low.

He was the Christopher Hitchens of his day in a lot of ways. He was also very idealist for a socialist imo.

[PhoenixAsh]

I highly doubt any of the communists he outed were anywhere near turning the UK into a 'Stalinist hell hole' or plotting to do so.

He outed them based upon his experiences in Spain, which is understandable, but still pretty low.

He was the Christopher Hitchens of his day in a lot of ways. He was also very idealist for a socialist imo.

The names on the list are, for as far as I know them and they are accurate, ridiculous. And there is indeed no excuse (te be clear...thats what I meant with "yes it is").

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I wasw really sad when Boxer the horse died.

[The Man]

I wasw really sad when Boxer the horse died.


Your not going to even put in a spoiler alert?

[Agent Ducky]

Lol. Well, you know that dude is gonna die when you read about how hard he works...

[Il Medico]

I have yet to read it myself, however, if its anywhere near as good as 1984 was, I'm sure its quite enjoyable.

[praxis1966]

I have yet to read it myself, however, if its anywhere near as good as 1984 was, I'm sure its quite enjoyable.

It's not.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Yeah, it struck me as rather heavy handed and obvious in its allegory, at least to anyone familiar with the Russian Revolution.

[GallowsBird]

I read it years ago (and watched that animated film) and liked it... I still think it is a good read and Orwell is a good writer but he is very naive and attacked the correct side of the Spanish Civil War (the Soviet backed side that defended Madrid) and attacked Stalin and the USSR without actually knowing much about it.

The same goes with 'Nineteen Eighty Four' which is great as a story and it is good that it attacked Oswald Moseley's "English Socialists" (hence "Ingsoc") however again it has an Anti-Soviet angle that is appalling. He conflates the Soviets with Nazis which is rather ridiculous

'Road To Wigham Pier' is better than his other works because it lacks all the anti-Soviet hysteria (a common condition of the left in the UK I'm afraid).

[Münchhausen]

I finished the book some weeks ago and i have to say i really enjoyed it. But when i read it, i didn't consider it a precise parabola for soviet history most of the time, though.
Of course it's obvious, that it was meant that way, but i think it's main message is, that people should keep an eye on the political decisions, that are taken all around them and should try to participate as much as they can, scince it was the apathy or ignorance of the majority of the animals, in the novel, that lead to the negative developement in the latter half of the story.
It also semmed to me, that the book portraied communism in general in a rather positive light, scince it is described that the farm prospered right after the revolution, when the animals all worked together, before the pigs took control and established privileges for themselves.

[Tim Finnegan]

he is very naive and attacked the correct side of the Spanish Civil War (the Soviet backed side that defended Madrid)...
He criticised the role of the Communist Party in the Republican government, specifically it's counter-revolutionary tendencies, not the Republic itself. He even goes out of his way to note that most ordinary supporters of the Communist Party were decent enough people, but mislead by party propagandising. (Also, the defence of Madrid was not a solely Communist affair- a variety of Republican supporters, including Anarchists, anti-Soviet Marxists, democratic socialists and liberals participated.)


The same goes with 'Nineteen Eighty Four' which is great as a story and it is good that it attacked Oswald Moseley's "English Socialists" (hence "Ingsoc") however again it has an Anti-Soviet angle that is appalling. He conflates the Soviets with Nazis which is rather ridiculousI wouldn't say it's a conflation, as such; it's a criticism of the common ideological machinery of ruling classes in industrial societies, with a particular focus on authoritarian regimes, which naturally leads one to giving ones attention to the two most prominent examples at that time, Nazi Germany and the USSR. Granted, it sometimes seems to stray closer to the foolish "totalitarian" hypothesis, but that's more because of the limited examination of liberal capitalism and so-called "totalitarian" regimes outside of the Fascist and Stalinist traditions than anything else; an implicit and I would say inadvertent conflation, rather than an explicit and deliberate one.