Questions to M-Ls about Animal Farm

[The Man]

Marxist-Leninists, what is your opinion on Animal Farm by George Orwell? Do you think it was rather spreading more un-needed misconceptions about Stalin?

[mosfeld]

George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist. Nothing he said about the USSR was true. For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society.

[RATM-Eubie]

George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist. Nothing he said about the USSR was true. For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society.

Of course! :rolleyes:
:laugh::laugh:

[Robespierre Richard]

It was a very idealistic portrayal of the USSR's history where its downfall is portrayed as inevitable from the beginning because of the general idealism of animals living by the law written on the barn. Read it a long while ago though.

[mosfeld]

Of course! :rolleyes:
:laugh::laugh:

Instead of making a completely useless post with absolutely no content, how about you try and refute what I stated? After all, if it's so laughable, it should be no problem.

[Tim Finnegan]

Instead of making a completely useless post with absolutely no content, how about you try and refute what I stated?
I would say that you self-refuted when you cited the Stalin Society as a principled opponent of state informants.

[mosfeld]

Being picky, are we? Well then, here's an alternative anti-Orwell writing from the Hoxhaite organization American Party of Labor concerning Orwell's list of communists which he sent to the police (with fun descriptions of what type of jews they were according to 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).
http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-american-party-of-labor.html

[Robespierre Richard]

I have to say though, I like this thread's OP. Instead of saying "what do leftists think about Animal Farm" and having a hideous clusterfuck of a thread, he refers to a specific tendency and wonders about the nuances of that tendency. As a result, all posts are more or less regarding the topic and not ideological holy wars.

[eric922]

George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist. Nothing he said about the USSR was true. For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society. So Trotsky isn't a communist now? I missed have missed the memo where we decided to kick him out of the club. No loss, I mean its not like he was important or anything. He just created the Red Army, was Lenin's right hand, and led the Revolution. Your right tho, he clearly wasn't a communist. :confused:

[Rooster]

Marxist-Leninists, what is your opinion on Animal Farm by George Orwell? Do you think it was rather spreading more un-needed misconceptions about Stalin?


George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist. Nothing he said about the USSR was true. For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society.

Okay, let's disseminate your posts here. Just because I love ya.

Two questions were asked:

1. What is your opinion on Animal Farm?
2. Do you think it spread un-need misconceptions about Stalin?

Let's take your first sentence; "George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist." Hmmm. Orwell, informant, trostskyite, anti-communist... hmmm. Oh, no opinion there. No questions answered. Let's move on though.

"Nothing he said about the USSR was true." Good, better. Now is this your opinion?

"For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society." Ah. I see we have reached a conundrum here.

You just went on about Orwell=police informant=Trotsky=anti-communist. Then you tried to form some sort of opinion but then backed it up with a link to a site that is pro-Stalin discussing a book which is anti-Stalin. Great. We've learned a lot here, fellas.

As for me? I thought the book was enjoyable. Did it spread un-needed misconceptions about Stalin? No, it didn't. It was about a group of pigs who lead a revolution on a farm. The pigs then set themselves apart from the other animals in the running of the farm. Living in luxury, re-writing and erasing the history of the revolution and eventually taking on the same appearances and manner as the original farm owner. If you want to read that into the history of the USSR then fine, be my guest.

[mosfeld]

If you want to talk about your reactionary saint, create a new thread. This is a learning thread about George Orwell and I'd hate to see it get derailed so we can talk about Trotsky.

[Tim Finnegan]

If you want to talk about your reactionary saint, create a new thread. This is a learning thread about George Orwell and I'd hate to see it get derailed so we can talk about Trotsky.
Given that you're declaring the man a "Champion of Trotskyism", then, surely, the two are inextricably linked?

[Terminator X]

If you want to talk about your reactionary saint, create a new thread. This is a learning thread about George Orwell and I'd hate to see it get derailed so we can talk about Trotsky.

Yet, you derailed the thread to talk about Trotsky.

[Kléber]

George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp
Orwell wasn't a Trotskyist, he was a demoralized petty-bourgeois who openly attacked Trotskyism. :rolleyes:

Trotskyists never collaborated with fascists or cops, except in the sick mind of Stalinist reptiles. However, there are many historical cases of absolute class treason by Stalinists.

Cannon and Shachtman didn't appear before HUAC to denounce the CPUSA, but Browder and Foster did appear before HUAC to denounce the SWP.

Before 1933 the Stalinist KPD participated in opportunist joint actions with the Nazis, like the "Red Referendum" to bring down the Prussian state SPD government. In 1939 the Stalinist bureaucracy partitioned Eastern Europe with the Nazis in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a result of which the USSR was almost completely destroyed. Soviet troops fought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lw%C3%B3w_%281939%29) and paraded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk) alongside the Nazi army under Stalin's watch. The NKVD held joint security conferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo%E2%80%93NKVD_Conferences) with the Gestapo, and handed over German communist prisoners to the Nazi concentration camp system, at least one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarete_Buber-Neumann) survived to tell her story (although she abandoned left-wing politics in general as a result of her experiences).

[mosfeld]

Okay, let's disseminate your posts here. Just because I love ya.

Two questions were asked:

1. What is your opinion on Animal Farm?
2. Do you think it spread un-need misconceptions about Stalin?

Let's take your first sentence; "George Orwell was a police informant, which has become somewhat of a trend in the Trotskyite camp, and an anti-communist." Hmmm. Orwell, informant, trostskyite, anti-communist... hmmm. Oh, no opinion there. No questions answered. Let's move on though.

"Nothing he said about the USSR was true." Good, better. Now is this your opinion?

"For a good read on him, check out "George Orwell: Anti-communist Propagandist, Champion of Trotskyism and State Informer (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/orwell.html)" by the Stalin Society." Ah. I see we have reached a conundrum here.

You just went on about Orwell=police informant=Trotsky=anti-communist. Then you tried to form some sort of opinion but then backed it up with a link to a site that is pro-Stalin discussing a book which is anti-Stalin. Great. We've learned a lot here, fellas.

As for me? I thought the book was enjoyable. Did it spread un-needed misconceptions about Stalin? No, it didn't. It was about a group of pigs who lead a revolution on a farm. The pigs then set themselves apart from the other animals in the running of the farm. Living in luxury, re-writing and erasing the history of the revolution and eventually taking on the same appearances and manner as the original farm owner. If you want to read that into the history of the USSR then fine, be my guest.

Lol? I think my statement and link perfectly demonstrates what I think about Orwell. How is an anti-semitic, anti-communist snitch who never set foot into the USSR and slandered the revolution with an extremely stupid fairy-tale book which simplified the complex history of the USSR to the point that a 5-year-old could understand it a reliable source concerning Stalin or USSR history? The fact that his anti-communist propaganda is force fed in schools should perfectly demonstrate how completely acceptable his propaganda is to the bourgeoisie and what class his propaganda serves.

[mosfeld]

Orwell wasn't a Trotskyist, he was a demoralized petty-bourgeois who openly attacked Trotskyism.

Trotskyists never collaborated with fascists or cops, except in the sick mind of Stalinist reptiles. However, there are many historical cases of absolute class treason by Stalinists.

Cannon and Shachtman didn't appear before HUAC to denounce the CPUSA, but Browder and Foster did appear before HUAC to denounce the SWP.

Before 1933 the Stalinist KPD participated in opportunist joint actions with the Nazis, like the "Red Referendum" to bring down the Prussian state SPD government. In 1939 the Stalinist bureaucracy partitioned Eastern Europe with the Nazis in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a result of which the USSR was almost completely destroyed. Soviet troops fought and paraded alongside the Nazi army under Stalin's watch. The NKVD held joint security conferences with the Gestapo, and handed over German communist prisoners to the Nazi concentration camp system, at least one of them survived to tell her story (although she abandoned left-wing politics in general as a result of her experiences).

Hey clown how about keeping this thread about George Orwell and not derailing it with your usual anti-"Stalinist" comedy routine?

[gestalt]

Nothing quite so refreshing as a discussion of literary allegory that doesn't regress into an ad hominem-fueled tendency war.

Arguably, his preface (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go) is superior to the actual text.

[RATM-Eubie]

Instead of making a completely useless post with absolutely no content, how about you try and refute what I stated? After all, if it's so laughable, it should be no problem.

Alright first of all as your evidence you post an article from the Stalin Society for evidence. Seriously? In all serious are you being serious?
Second off Orwell was a democratic socialist not a Trotskyist.... No doubt it looked at Trotsky's critiques of the Soviet Regime and was most likely a fan of them does not make him a Trotskyist. He was probably in favor of Trotsky taking power of the USSR (coming from Animal Farm) does not make him a Trotskyist either.
Can you please find a reliable source with all this information that you are claiming.

[Kléber]

Hey clown how about keeping this thread about George Orwell and not derailing it with your usual anti-"Stalinist" comedy routine?
How about you go fuck yourself? Before he snitched (like so many Stalinists have snitched), Orwell took a bullet in the neck fighting against fascism. In his younger days he was a better revolutionary than all you pathetic little "anti-revisionist" bloggers will ever be.

[ZeroNowhere]

This thread isn't about Orwell, it's about a book. The usual hackneyed debates about whether Orwell was an informant are irrelevant, although it's a good demonstration of how Revleft tends to default to the repetition of old and tired debates.

[Gorilla]

Hey clown how about keeping this thread about George Orwell and not derailing it with your usual anti-"Stalinist" comedy routine?

Yes, let's not get derailed. But the point about Orwell not being a Trot is quite true. (I mean, the fucker is guilty of enough already, let's not add another capital charge to the mix). During the Spanish civil war Orwell fought for POUM, which was a merger of Bukharinities and part of the left opposition that broke with Trotsky in 1935.

[The Man]

I love how I can post a simple question, and then some idiot comes in and starts making stupid accusations, and then in a matter of 5 minutes, the whole thread is derailed, debating about Trotskyism.

[Gorilla]

I love how I can post a simple question, and then some idiot comes in and starts making stupid accusations, and then in a matter of 5 minutes, the whole thread is derailed, debating about Trotskyism.

Seriously, the piece by Joti Brar (yes, of the Stalin Society) is fairly a good one. She makes heavy use of the essay collection Inside the Myth: Orwell - Views from the Left which you can peruse on your own if you're interested in more mainstream left-scholarly criticism.

[Octavian]

Marxist-Leninists, what is your opinion on Animal Farm by George Orwell? Do you think it was rather spreading more un-needed misconceptions about Stalin?

I think it did lay out a semi-accurate portrayal of the revolution and Stalinist USSR but it seemed too biased and dogmatic. It does good job of being an over simplified parody but still seems too obvious.

[Tim Finnegan]

This thread isn't about Orwell, it's about a book. The usual hackneyed debates about whether Orwell was an informant are irrelevant, although it's a good demonstration of how Revleft tends to default to the repetition of old and tired debates.
I propose that we construct an elaborate animal-based analogy explaining our tendency to default to the repletion of old and tired debates. Y'know, to keep in the spirit of things.

[eric922]

I love how I can post a simple question, and then some idiot comes in and starts making stupid accusations, and then in a matter of 5 minutes, the whole thread is derailed, debating about Trotskyism.
I apologize for contributing to that. I should have just ignored it. My bad.

[Bright Banana Beard]

,
How about you go fuck yourself Before he snitched (like so many Stalinists have snitched), Orwell took a bullet in the neck fighting against fascism. In his younger days he was a better revolutionary than all you pathetic little "anti-revisionist" bloggers will ever be.

So did the liberals and Stalinists back in the days, Orwell will also be better than any of the pathetic little Trotskyite will ever be. I loved how you can manage to turn the thread to it irrelevence to this whiny bullshit. Seriously, contribute to this thread or grow the fuck up by not replying.,,

[Bright Banana Beard]

The fact is Animal Farm is used as propaganda against changing the society. The book is about idealized incident of Russia Revolution and the conclusion is the revolution failed, which is only true with the collapse of the USSR.

The book shouldn't be used as the tool against communism, but it is and this is why we wanted to dismantle this bullshit book. Orwell never ever set foot on the USSR. This should tell you how unreliable the book is.

[Gorilla]

The fact is Animal Farm is used as propaganda against changing the society.

This is an important point. The 'moral' of the book is the animals were fucking saps for wanting to change anything in the first place and would have been better off sticking with the good ol' farmer. You don't have to be an ML to hate that.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is an important point. The 'moral' of the book is the animals were fucking saps for wanting to change anything in the first place and would have been better off sticking with the good ol' farmer. You don't have to be an ML to hate that.It's interesting that you put forward a rather questionable interpretation at best as if it were self-evident.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it did lay out a semi-accurate portrayal of the revolution and Stalinist USSR but it seemed too biased and dogmatic. It does good job of being an over simplified parody but still seems too obvious.
I think it's important to keep in mind that Animal Farm is neither a collection of historical essays nor a scientific work. Rather, it is a literary work, which means that verification shouldn't be taken as a primary criterion when assessing its importance or quality.

That being said, I find it quite indicative that some poeple are completely unable to approach a work of art as something other than crude propaganda (in fact, the work itself wasn't even "attacked"; rather, Orwell himself was immediately defamed as "police agent").

[hatzel]

I think it's a pretty okay book...

You see that? I said something about the book. Not Orwell. Not Trotsky. The book. I'm awesome because I do what I'm told :thumbup1:

...but actually I didn't because I'm not ML so I broke the rules. Also my comment was wishy-washy and meaningless :( But the point remains!

[Gorilla]

It's interesting that you put forward a rather questionable interpretation at best as if it were self-evident.

Oh, well fuck, at least I'm not talking about police agents and shit.

More than a few critics, by no means only Stalinists, have read Animal Farm as more than a critique of Stalinism, but an attack on radical social change generally. I have already cited the scholarly collection Inside the Myth: Orwell, Views from the Left. Here also is a hostile review from Green Left Weekly, an Australian Trot publication:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/31285

Not to mention the use the National Review crowd has made of it over the years. So, self-evident: maybe not. But what's ever self-evident in literary interpretation? It's a valid way to read the book, and probably the dominant way that it has been read.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I've read it, I still do read it sometimes for laughs. I won't say too much about what I think concerning the anti-Communist nature of the book because frankly I don't care, it's a work of fiction which has been debunked a million times, you might as well post a thread and ask "hey left comms, what do you think about the portrayal of Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Animal Farm is chit chat material, nothing more. My #1 issue with the book is not Napoleon (Stalin), but rather certain members of the proletariat throughout most of the book, the sheep of course, and particularly Boxer the horse is shown as a fool who would not question anything Stalin did, seems to me like Orwell was branding a large portion of Soviet workers as weak minded. There are only a couple of animals on the farm who know that Napoleon is corrupt, and they mostly keep quiet about it, everyone else remains pretty ignorant. A very unfavorable portrayal of the working class.

So yeah, I don't like it, but it's just a storybook at the end of the day, I just wish more people could see it that way.

So Trotsky isn't a communist now? I missed have missed the memo where we decided to kick him out of the club.
Yes, yes you must have. Actually we kicked him out of the club about eight decades ago :laugh:

Before he snitched (like so many Stalinists have snitched), Orwell took a bullet in the neck fighting against fascism.
So what? He was still a snitch. Congratulations Mr. Orwell on getting yourself shot during your adventure in Spain, you are now free to be as reactionary as you please, we will forever worship you, just because you went to Spain and subsequently published a book about it. A snitch is a snitch, but hey, Kleber at least you admit he was a snitch, some people on here ignore the fact and/or excuse him for it, between this and the support for imperialism in Libya I honestly think I've come back to a revleft which has gone soft.

[Invader Zim]

Orwell was not a snitch, that accusation is outright bullshit that evenb a curasary examination of the history of his list to the IRD would put right.

[Gorilla]

Orwell was not a snitch, that accusation is outright bullshit that evenb a curasary examination of the history of his list to the IRD would put right.

And a cursory examination of the IRD would put it back wrong again.

[Roach]

Orwell's work is too vague to form a concrete political position, most of the positions we can drawn from it are on the realm of petty-bourgeois idealism and have no place within the politics of the working class.

[Invader Zim]

And a cursory examination of the IRD would put it back wrong again.

You care to discuss the matter or just make contradictory noises?

[Amphictyonis]

Of course! :rolleyes:
:laugh::laugh:

Just pointing out your organization; not caring about the Orwell argument. Why democrats?

[Bilan]

The fact is Animal Farm is used as propaganda against changing the society. The book is about idealized incident of Russia Revolution and the conclusion is the revolution failed, which is only true with the collapse of the USSR.

You haven't read the book. Seriously. From that comment I can tell you actually haven't read the book. Stop writing. Read it. Come back.




Orwell never ever set foot on the USSR. This should tell you how unreliable the book is.

So, tell me of your experiences of the Russian Revolution or even the USSR.

[Bilan]

I've read it, I still do read it sometimes for laughs. I won't say too much about what I think concerning the anti-Communist nature of the book because frankly I don't care, it's a work of fiction which has been debunked a million times, you might as well post a thread and ask "hey left comms, what do you think about the portrayal of Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Animal Farm is chit chat material, nothing more. My #1 issue with the book is not Napoleon (Stalin), but rather certain members of the proletariat throughout most of the book, the sheep of course, and particularly Boxer the horse is shown as a fool who would not question anything Stalin did, seems to me like Orwell was branding a large portion of Soviet workers as weak minded. There are only a couple of animals on the farm who know that Napoleon is corrupt, and they mostly keep quiet about it, everyone else remains pretty ignorant. A very unfavorable portrayal of the working class.

Which explains what, exactly? You want a glorified picture of the working class as a noble, righteous class aware of it's own historical position (in it's totality) and aware of the fact that Lenin and Stalin truly did hold the map to their liberation?
Pull the other one.




So yeah, I don't like it, but it's just a storybook at the end of the day, I just wish more people could see it that way.

Absolutely!



So what? He was still a snitch. Congratulations Mr. Orwell on getting yourself shot during your adventure in Spain, you are now free to be as reactionary as you please, we will forever worship you, just because you went to Spain and subsequently published a book about it. A snitch is a snitch, but hey, Kleber at least you admit he was a snitch, some people on here ignore the fact and/or excuse him for it, between this and the support for imperialism in Libya I honestly think I've come back to a revleft which has gone soft.

/slander
Relevance?

[mosfeld]

So, tell me of your experiences of the Russian Revolution or even the USSR.

The point is that if you want to read about the USSR you should read from someone who knows their shit. Anna Louise Strong spent several years in the USSR and wrote "The Stalin Era (http://leninist.biz/en/0000/ALS00000/index.html)". John Reed went to Russia during the outbreak of the revolution and subsequently wrote "Ten Days that Shook the World (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/)", etc, etc.. Orwell never went to the USSR and then decided to write a fairytale story about how terrible life is there and how Stalin was a corrupt pig. He's not a reliable account at all.

[mosfeld]

How about you go fuck yourself? Before he snitched (like so many Stalinists have snitched), Orwell took a bullet in the neck fighting against fascism. In his younger days he was a better revolutionary than all you pathetic little "anti-revisionist" bloggers will ever be.

http://www.irsmurf.com/forums/engadget/baww.jpg

Do I have to point to you the millions of people who have died in the name of "Stalinism" all over the world? What's your point, clown?

[Roach]

You haven't read the book. Seriously. From that comment I can tell you actually haven't read the book. Stop writing. Read it. Come back. So, tell me of your experiences of the Russian Revolution or even the USSR.

From the ''stalinist'' point of view Animal Farm does not present a concrete criticism on the USSR under Stalin, it's simply a class-vague tale about farm animals and can be easily used by reactionaries as propaganda against any attempt at changing society, since in the end a dictator will see an opportunity to usurp the power from the masses and make things worse than they were before.


But I sincerely would like to see any evidence that the book is in fact supportive of working class rule.

[Geiseric]

I think it's free to say that Animal Farm, 1984, and most fiction books wtitten by anybody are open for personal interpretation. That's the beauty of it.

Anyways, Napoleon can represent any revolutionary tendency that falsifys the past, kinda like how Stalin edited out Trotsky and others from pictures with Lenin, or somebody who uses a
scapegoat to get away with messing up, like how the stalinists
in spain blamed all of the war's shortcomings on the semi-trotskyist P.O.U.M.
The connection between the dogs and the NKVD is indistinguishable, and the propaganda Squealer spurts out is reminicent of Stalin's cult of personality.

Anyways, I think it's fair to say he was inspired, in some aspects from the Stalinist beuracracy. Everyth

[Gorilla]

You care to discuss the matter or just make contradictory noises?

Not really. If people want to look up IRD and what it was for they can decide for themselves.

[PhoenixAsh]

the book http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/2.html

Now..I am not a Stalinist so I can't answer for them. But the book is today used in the education system and seen by people who read it outside of the education system as a warning...not only against Satlinism but about communism and socialism in general.

There are two arguments I often encounter: 1984 and animal farm when discussing revolutionary aspirations and politics.

So yes. Its undeniable true that both books have fucked us royaly. And orwell did not do us a favor.

[Sixiang]

Marxist-Leninists, what is your opinion on Animal Farm by George Orwell?
I enjoyed it when I read it in junior high for my Literature class. I thought the idea of animals taking over a farm from the farmer and the characters in it was a cute idea. Reading that book was the first time I ever heard of communism or the Soviet Union. I can say that Animal Farm sparked my interest in history, particularly the history of communism as an idea. A few years later, I started reading Marx and Engels and it just spiraled out from there until I found and joined revleft.


Do you think it was rather spreading more un-needed misconceptions about Stalin?
Not necessarily. I know Orwell was anti-Stalin, but I wouldn't say that the book was "un-needed." The fact that it's taught in American elementary schools tells me that it's an easy and early attempt to plant anti-leftist sentiment among children. Ironically their plan failed and it led me down a completely different path.

[Tifosi]

Animal Farm, it's not as bad as Lord of the Files:p

What I don't like about Animal Farm is that the pigs take power, after the revolution without any resistance from the other farm animals. No wonder it's prime reading in schools, "any action you take to improve your lifes is doomed, your friends will fuck you over".

If Orwell's goal was to criticize Stalin and his government there was other ways he could have done it, we all know that there was plenty for him to have picked from. But I don't think that is what Animal Farm is attacking, it's attacking the idea of revolution.

[RATM-Eubie]

the book http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/2.html

Now..I am not a Stalinist so I can't answer for them. But the book is today used in the education system and seen by people who read it outside of the education system as a warning...not only against Satlinism but about communism and socialism in general.

There are two arguments I often encounter: 1984 and animal farm when discussing revolutionary aspirations and politics.

So yes. Its undeniable true that both books have fucked us royaly. And orwell did not do us a favor.

In school we were always told that Orwell was just an anti authoritarian leftist. We were told that he was a leftist, and more accurately a socialist... (which he is)

[Tim Finnegan]

Orwell's work is too vague to form a concrete political position, most of the positions we can drawn from it are on the realm of petty-bourgeois idealism and have no place within the politics of the working class.
"If there is any hope, it lies with the proles."

Yes, how very petty bourgeois. Why, you can practically feel the sun-dried tomatoes just tumbling off it... :rolleyes:


What I don't like about Animal Farm is that the pigs take power, after the revolution without any resistance from the other farm animals. No wonder it's prime reading in schools, "any action you take to improve your lifes is doomed, your friends will fuck you over".

If Orwell's goal was to criticize Stalin and his government there was other ways he could have done it, we all know that there was plenty for him to have picked from. But I don't think that is what Animal Farm is attacking, it's attacking the idea of revolution.
What utter pish. God's sake, read Homage to Catalonia and give it a bit of context, you'll see that Orwell was very much in favour of revolution. It was, as anyone not blinded by their own cynicism should be able to see, a protest against counter-revolution.


So yes. Its undeniable true that both books have fucked us royaly. And orwell did not do us a favor.
Oh, come on. You really believe that these people- these middle-class, white, conservative people- begin as open-minded progressive, read Orwell's books, and then and only then become foaming anti-communists? You may as well suggest that The Communist Manifesto "fucked us royally", because people like to misinterpret that as well.

The reactionary reading, in this case, is fully intended before the first page is turned.

[Gorilla]

"If there is any hope, it lies with the proles."

Yes, how very petty bourgeois. Why, you can practically feel the sun-dried tomatoes just tumbling off it... :rolleyes:

I think Animal Farm is reactionary bullshit, but I don't have the same 1984. 1984 does some complex things with Winston Smith's psychology, portrays the action of ideology very vividly in ways that are applicable to more than Stalinism, has real emotional range, and is just generally a worthwhile book.



God's sake, read Homage to Catalonia and give it a bit of context, you'll see that Orwell was very much in favour of revolution.

Does Orwell ever advocate for a revolution in the UK? (Honest question, I don't know his nonfiction all that well.)

[JerryBiscoTrey]

In school we were always told that Orwell was just an anti authoritarian leftist. We were told that he was a leftist, and more accurately a socialist... (which he is)

Really, were you? I was never told anything about George Orwell's political beliefs. I was given the book in history class and basically told "here's a genius allegory on why the USSR sucked and Stalin was evil"

[Tim Finnegan]

I think Animal Farm is reactionary bullshit, but I don't have the same 1984. 1984 does some complex things with Winston Smith's psychology, portrays the action of ideology very vividly in ways that are applicable to more than Stalinism, has real emotional range, and is just generally a worthwhile book.
Ah, well, at the very least we agree on 1984. :thumbup1:


Does Orwell ever advocate for a revolution in the UK? (Honest question, I don't know his nonfiction all that well.)As far as I can recall, only once in the sense that we would mean it, in the epilogue to Homage to Catalonia- he criticises the socialists and communists in Spain for claiming that the revolution tendencies of the POUM and CNT alienated the working class of the liberal democracies, suggesting instead that the adoption of a full and explicit revolutionary program would have met with a response in kind from the workers of France and Britain, and perhaps even Italy and Germany. (The accuracy of this claim can be disputed, of course.) His other discussion of "revolution", typified by his 1941 essay The English Revolution (http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_ter) (he always seemed to forget that the rest of the British Isles existed...), tend to focus on a radical program of state-lead reforms, typical of the ILP and its fellow travellers. They were what you might call "pragmatic revolutionaries", supporting out-and-out revolution where effective (as in Spain) and more conservative approaches elsewhere, and, as Orwell was a a bit of a provincial fellow, his mind didn't tend to stray too far from the British situation.

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh, come on. You really believe that these people- these middle-class, white, conservative people- begin as open-minded progressive, read Orwell's books, and then and only then become foaming anti-communists? You may as well suggest that The Communist Manifesto "fucked us royally", because people like to misinterpret that as well.

The reactionary reading, in this case, is fully intended before the first page is turned.

I...no doubt many have been infuses with large dosis of anti-leftism throughout their lives. But the book is written by an actual socialist..."so he must know what he is talking about"

Its the basic concept: "if your enemy says anything bad about your enemy...it must be true."

[Tim Finnegan]

I...no doubt many have been infuses with large dosis of anti-leftism throughout their lives. But the book is written by an actual socialist..."so he must know what he is talking about"

Its the basic concept: "if your enemy says anything bad about your enemy...it must be true."
But neither book actually functions, on any meaningful level, as an attack on socialism itself, simply on certain implementations of socialist ideology. (Just look at the split opinion as to whether Animal Farm is "reactionary" or "Trotskyist", something which strongly implies to me that can not be reasonably considered either.) One can only take away the idea that Orwell "says bad anything" about socialism if one looks only for that which can be interpreted as bad- which, at least in the case of 1984, means skipping over every single word in the entire book except for "IngSoc".

[Geiseric]

Orwell was talking specifically about stalinism. The doublethink theme in 1984 means that you think of the opposite or what the party tells you to think about a topic. Ingsoc, english socialism, is a product of doublethink, meaning the people think what the party wants them to think, which is actual socialism, when in reality they're the opposite of socialism. Orwell was biting specifically on Stalinism, he spoke favorably of lenin and trotsky in animal farm and badly about the characters basrd off stalinism, namely Napoleon and Big Brother.

Goldstein was based off trotsky, and if you read the part in the book when Winston is reading goldsteins book, it's implied that Goldstein serves as a major role as the symbol of hope. Orwell wasn't a mindless anti-socialist red scare writer, he was an anti- totalitarian writer.

[Tim Finnegan]

Orwell was talking specifically about stalinism. The doublethink theme in 1984 means that you think of the opposite or what the party tells you to think about a topic. Ingsoc, english socialism, is a product of doublethink, meaning the people think what the party wants them to think, which is actual socialism, when in reality they're the opposite of socialism. Orwell was biting specifically on Stalinism, he spoke favorably of lenin and trotsky in animal farm and badly about the characters basrd off stalinism, namely Napoleon and Big Brother.
While it's true that Stalinism was what he had at the front of his mind, he also drew on other authoritarian ideologies- the Fascists and Nazis are explicitly referenced in the book- and, more broadly, it functions as an exaggerated but fairly solid critique of all forms of class rule and ideological hegemony. Suggesting that the characteristics of the IngSoc regime are uniquely Stalinist- or even uniquely "totalitarian", if you'll forgive me for even bringing that concept up- is to feed into the liberal distortions of Orwell's work. (Not that you meant to, of course, but I strongly advise against it.)

[DaringMehring]

Orwell's claim to being a leftist is that he went to Spain during the civil war & fought on the Republican side. But he might have just gone there because he was anti-Papist and wanted to fight the church and kill Catholics.

His essay/short fiction "Shooting an Elephant" is deeply imperialist, despite nominally being about the problems of empire, it really stresses the "white man's burden" as why imperialism is wrong --- it corrupts and burdens the imperialists. The essay in not sympathetic to the natives at all really.

Also in 1984, the Trotsky-allegory, Emanuel Goldstein, is portrayed in the end as a false opposition, and the message is that, ultimately, there is no hope for that society. It is not a Trotskyist message at all, it is just anti-communism.

What is more, this guy cooperated with the British authorities.

Animal Farm & 1984 are just the fictionalization of his petit-bourgeois feelings. Do they have any real content as a logical argument? I don't see any. They are not materialist at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Orwell's claim to being a leftist is that he went to Spain during the civil war & fought on the Republican side.
Better claim than you've got, sonny jim, I'll tell you that for free.


Also in 1984, the Trotsky-allegory, Emanuel Goldstein, is portrayed in the end as a false opposition, and the message is that, ultimately, there is no hope for that society. It is not a Trotskyist message at all, it is just anti-communism.
No, O'Brien says that Goldstein was false. O'Brien, who was established only seconds previously to be a professional liar. O'Brien, who goes on to espouse the parties ideology of bureaucratic solipsism, under which the accuracy of any given assertion is irrelevant. O'Brien, who quite openly makes shit up as he goes along. I'm not one for taking everything he says at face value.


Animal Farm & 1984 are just the fictionalization of his petit-bourgeois feelings. Do they have any real content as a logical argument? I don't see any. They are not materialist at all.
"Logical argument"? In 1984? Do you not know how novels work or something? :confused:

[Geiseric]

I suppose he stressed stalinism but also had nazi qualities as well such as people in oceana were trained to be racist as hell and go into frenzies when they see eurasian soldiers. By the way, the entire point of goldstein was missed. The point is that their rule is so efficient that Winston, or any citizen of oceana, would never know if he existed. He's a scapegoat for everything bad that happens, he's an outside threat needed to maintain order, not unlike the jews in nazi germany or Communists in america. However, when the party says that Goldstein is captured or was never against the government, nobody would notice the difference in 1984. He's just an instrument of the partyzls mind control, if he does or doesn't exist. Big Brother may not even exist, but it might be the same principle of mind control. Big Brother, like god, is always watching. Even in the middle of a forest in a burned down church he's watching.

[Sixiang]

Goldstein was based off trotsky, and if you read the part in the book when Winston is reading goldsteins book, it's implied that Goldstein serves as a major role as the symbol of hope. Orwell wasn't a mindless anti-socialist red scare writer, he was an anti- totalitarian writer.

Really? Here's a quote from wikipedia on the matter:


In the "initiation ceremony" into the Brotherhood, as depicted in the novel, the characters of Winston and Julia are required to swear to complete and unconditional obedience, including taking the obligation to obey such orders as killing hundreds of innocents or pouring acid on a child's face. This suggests that in fact the Brotherhood is as tyrannical and authoritarian as the Party, and that if it ever gained power there would be little real change. This accords with the theory that the Brotherhood represents the Trotskyists, whom Orwell saw as little different fundamentally from the Communists.

Also, O'Brien, the guy that tortured Winston at the end of the novel, said that he collaborated in writing the book. I think that it's very likely that Goldstein is supposed to be made up by the party for propaganda reasons. If Orwell loved Trotsky, then why would he portray him as just as authoritarian and oppressive as Stalin?

I've come to the conclusion that Orwell was a man of multitudes, like many writers.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

[Tifosi]

What utter pish. God's sake, read Homage to Catalonia and give it a bit of context, you'll see that Orwell was very much in favour of revolution. It was, as anyone not blinded by their own cynicism should be able to see, a protest against counter-revolution.

Homage to Catalonia is a good book that I enjoyed reading, but is it the book that is prime reading for children in schools? No. Animal Farm is!

Anyway Homage to Catalonia is non-fiction unlike Animal Farm. Orwell could have put in characters to give the book a pro-revolutionary feel. Put in a seagull that spoke in favour of the revolutions purpose and shown how they wouldn't all fail, but he didn't. There was Old Major at the start, but once he had died there was no one.

Pigs are bad just because they are and everyone else on the farm let's the pigs walk all over them just because they do. Are people like sheep? The pigs take over without the other animals defending their revolution in any way whatsoever.

That's the reason why it giving to children to read. The message which comes to the reader is "doing anything will only make things worse". Music to the ears of the bourgeoisie.

Animal Farm shouldn't take away what other things Orwell did, like going to Spain, but it just is such a bad book.

[Tim Finnegan]

You're assuming that a reactionary reading is the feasible only one. I would disagree with that.

[Tifosi]

You're assuming that a reactionary reading is the feasible only one. I would disagree with that.

Why do you disagree comrade?

The overall message of Animal Farm is that no matter how bad things are, acting to change things in any meaningful way will only result in making things worse. That's reactionary.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why do you disagree comrade?

The overall message of Animal Farm is that no matter how bad things are, acting to change things in any meaningful way will only result in making things worse. That's reactionary.
I think that you're hunting for an "overall message" which was not intended, nor that one can find without attempting to piece it together- which is to say, unless one takes the forced reading of the bourgeoisie. Perhaps, in his enthusiasm for attacking the Stalinist counter-revolution, he does not stress the potentially emancipatory character of the original revolution strongly enough, but those are literary criticisms, not ideological ones.
Do remember, this was written after Orwell had already enthusiastically- and unrepentantly- participated in revolutionary activity in Spain. He was not someone who held the glum view of proletarian revolution that you attribute to him.

[Robespierre Richard]

I think that you're hunting for an "overall message" which was not intended, nor that one can find without attempting to piece it together- which is to say, unless one takes the forced reading of the bourgeoisie. Perhaps, in his enthusiasm for attacking the Stalinist counter-revolution, he does not stress the potentially emancipatory character of the original revolution strongly enough, but those are literary criticisms, not ideological ones.

I'm sorry, you can speculate about it all you like, but sometimes things are exactly how they appear. Animal Farm is one of those times.

[Tim Finnegan]

I am honestly baffled by the number of so-called "revolutionaries" who cheerfully accept the bourgeois line in regards to this book. Is critical thinking really that endangered on the left?

[RATM-Eubie]

I am honestly baffled by the number of so-called "revolutionaries" who cheerfully accept the bourgeois line in regards to this book. Is critical thinking really that endangered on the left?

Same thing can be said about your knowledge...

[Rooster]

Anyway Homage to Catalonia is non-fiction unlike Animal Farm. Orwell could have put in characters to give the book a pro-revolutionary feel. Put in a seagull that spoke in favour of the revolutions purpose and shown how they wouldn't all fail, but he didn't. There was Old Major at the start, but once he had died there was no one.

Pigs are bad just because they are and everyone else on the farm let's the pigs walk all over them just because they do. Are people like sheep? The pigs take over without the other animals defending their revolution in any way whatsoever.

That's the reason why it giving to children to read. The message which comes to the reader is "doing anything will only make things worse". Music to the ears of the bourgeoisie.

Animal Farm shouldn't take away what other things Orwell did, like going to Spain, but it just is such a bad book.

Oh come off it. Each animal in the represents a material social group, some of them individualised. Insert a seagull that spoke in favour of the revolution? What? As in the spirit of the revolution? What has a spirit got to do with anything? And besides, besides old Major, Snowball was the representation of what I guess you're asking about.

If you've read that pigs are bad because they're pigs and sheep are people, then you've read a far too simple message into it. Think why the pigs were chosen, why the sheep mindlessly bah the old revolutionary messages, why didn't the other animals do anything? It's because the time in the story is compressed. The actual animals don't represent individual people, but different social groups of people, that's why they're able to forget how things used to be.

So your only real reason for saying that the book is bad is because you didn't think it promoted a revolutionart spirit. So does that mean that every book that doesn't deal with revolutionary triumph is a bad book? Ug.

[Tim Finnegan]

Same thing can be said about your knowledge...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/Mariyuko/joker-clap.gif

[PhoenixAsh]

I am honestly baffled by the number of so-called "revolutionaries" who cheerfully accept the bourgeois line in regards to this book. Is critical thinking really that endangered on the left?

The problem with the book is not what revolutionaries think about it but what the general public thinks of it.

And its perceived to be a condemnation of authoritarianism....fascism, but also, and especially so, communism/socialism. This is without any prior knowledge about the politics of the systems compared.

If you aks around and you encounter people who have read the book in Holland, or know of it they will eventually all equate it with communism/socialism.

In that way the book is doing us no favors.

As a litterary work however....I enjoy it, but do not think it especially brilliant, clever or remarkable.

[RATM-Eubie]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/Mariyuko/joker-clap.gif


;)

[Invader Zim]

Not really. If people want to look up IRD and what it was for they can decide for themselves.

Decide what for them selves? Whether the IRD was a reactionary organisation or whether Orwell was a "snitch" for producing a list of individuals inappropriate to ask to write for the IRD? Do you actually grasp what the list incident was actually about? I would suggest clearly not.

[Tifosi]

The actual animals don't represent individual people, but different social groups of people, that's why they're able to forget how things used to be.

So the prolaterian's and peasant's of Russia were stupid and forgetful people? That needed some better person to take them forward, Old Major and Snowball. But once they were finished, they themselves were finished also.

I don't think that is true in anyway. But the bourgeoisie will sure as hell like that line, of how people just forget about things without the right help. So will a fare amount of children now.


So does that mean that every book that doesn't deal with revolutionary triumph is a bad book? Ug.

Depends what the book claims to be and how that book is used.

It may not affect you or me now, but it will affect children, left to make their own conclusions about Animal Farm. "Revolution seems bad".

[agnixie]

So the prolaterian's and peasant's of Russia were stupid and forgetful people? That needed some better person to take them forward, Old Major and Snowball. But once they were finished, they themselves were finished also.

I find this ironic in light of your conclusion.


Depends what the book claims to be and how that book is used.
The book claims to be a fiction and an allegory. The way it's been taught to me, it wasn't about socialism, but totalitarianism and the betrayal to the revolution that it represents. I was admittedly lucky to have many socialist teachers. Especially in a school all stripes of the right, from white supremacists to monarchists, in its students.



It may not affect you or me now, but it will affect children, left to make their own conclusions about Animal Farm. "Revolution seems bad".

Many children come to the conclusion that the pigs lied to the animals and stole their fight.

[Bilan]

The point is that if you want to read about the USSR you should read from someone who knows their shit. Anna Louise Strong spent several years in the USSR and wrote "The Stalin Era (http://leninist.biz/en/0000/ALS00000/index.html)". John Reed went to Russia during the outbreak of the revolution and subsequently wrote "Ten Days that Shook the World (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/)", etc, etc.. Orwell never went to the USSR and then decided to write a fairytale story about how terrible life is there and how Stalin was a corrupt pig. He's not a reliable account at all.

Spending 'years' somewhere doesn't make you credible. Not spending years somewhere has the same affect. What is important is the reliablilty of the information and it's accuracy.