I have heard Right Wingers bring up the Book Animal Farm by George Orwell.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I have heard Right Wingers bring up the Book Animal Farm by George Orwell to prove why Marxism does not work. They say that the Communist Party Elite or Leaders of the Communist Government will hoard most of the Wealth/Resources/Food. Can this claim be debunked or refuted they say that the Soviet Union did not have Equality and that the Communist Party Elite were Rich/Wealthy or had more Wealth than the average Soviet citizen. Does this prove that Socialism doesn't work I know not everyone got paid the same wage in the Soviet Union but is there a good reason as to why the Communist Party Leaders got paid more money where they Rich thank you ?


Animal Farm
George Orwell

"Animal Farm" successfully presents how the mechanism of propaganda and brainwashing works in totalitarian regimes, by showing how the pigs could make the other animals believe practically anything. Responsible for the propaganda was Squealer, a pig that "could turn black into white". Squealer managed to change the rule from "all animals are equal" to" all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". He managed to convince the other animals that it was for their sake that the pigs ate most of the apples and drank most of the milk, that leadership was "heavy responsibility" and therefore the animals should be thankful to Napoleon, that what they saw may have been something they "dreamed", and when everything else failed he would use the threat of " Jones returning" to silence the animals. In this simple but effective way, Orwell presents the tragedy and confusion of thought control to the extent that one seems better off simply believing that" Napoleon is always right".

http://bookreviews.nabou.com/reviews/animalfarm.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is a statement against Stalinism....right wingers just use it because they are ignorant and have no idea what Marxism is.

[Property Is Robbery]

They got paid better because they were arguably state capitalists. However animal farm is only a critique on "Stalinism" and not on Socialism itself considering the Orwell was a Libertarian Socialist.

[Column No.4]

The moment government does that it immediately ceases to be Communist.

[CommunityBeliever]

They say that the Communist Party Elite or Leaders of the Communist Government will hoard most of the Wealth/Resources/Food. Comrade Castro doesn't have any personal fortune. A few years ago, Forbes said he had nearly a billion dollars in bank accounts, and he responded by stating that if you can find even 1$ in any foreign bank account he would resign.

The claim that communists, even the most important ones, hoard Wealth/Resources/Food is bullshit. These are malicious slanders put forth bourgeoisie scum (like Steve Forbes) to justify their own greed, by pretending that greed is natural or inevitable.

Furthermore, I think there isn't really anything about "human nature" that indicates that we should gather any more then we need for basic survival, in capitalist societies greed is encouraged by the education system and the society as a whole.

[RGacky3]

Knowing Fidel I would be really suprised if he had a personal fortune.

[DarkPast]

Knowing Fidel I would be really suprised if he had a personal fortune.

Around 15 years ago it was discovered that Lenin had a fortune in Switzerland... The princely sum of 12.90 Swiss Francs. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

It is a statement against Stalinism....right wingers just use it because they are ignorant and have no idea what Marxism is.
All they know is what they see--and they see the USSR and Maoist China, North Korea and Iron Curtain countries CLAIMING to be Communists, or at least the vanguards of a Communist society.

These "Communist" societies played by the rules--they had their Revolutions, they had victorious Proletariats, they abolished the Bourgoisese, they sung the songs and quoted the Communist Manifesto.

You can't really blame the Free World for thinking they actually were Communists. Honestly I never would have had a clue about what Communism was all about till I discovered the website.

I've lately retired from work a bit and am traveling around--and I've talked to to people in China and Spain (CNT) and others and almost nobody has a the same conception of Communism as you Comrades here on RevLeft. (Absolutely NO KIDDING on that point.)

Good for you.

Who knew?

[CommieTroll]

It's a Trotskyist attack on Stalinism, Orwell was a self described ''Tory-Anarchist'' but was heavily influenced by Trotsky so it's biased from the beginning. It'd be the same if Trotsky went into power instead of Stalin, a Stalinist would would write a critique of Trotsky's Soviet Union

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

It's quite easy to refute any right-winger who uses it as evidence that socialism can't work, because all it is a work of fiction.

[CommunityBeliever]

Maoist China, North KoreaChina and the DPRK are two remaining countries which stand against Western imperialist hegemony. They stood together in an effort to resist imperialism during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.

Hands off China! (http://handsoffchina.org/)
Hands off the DPRK! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=166)

Despite US aggresssion and economic sanctions the DPRK has achieved Free medical care, free housing, full employment, free education and basic human safety, things which are still to be desired by the poor and the minorities (Africans) living in the U.S. May the alliance between the DPRK and China continue for the years to come!

[CommunityBeliever]

the Free WorldFree to piss on the labourers and the productive people.

[Per Levy]

You can't really blame the Free World for thinking they actually were Communists.

what free world?

[Tim Cornelis]

George Orwell fought with a Marxist milita during the Civil War and was a (democratic) socialist. What proof do you need?

[Bud Struggle]

China and the DPRK are two remaining countries which stand against Western imperialist hegemony. They stood together in an effort to resist imperialism during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.

Hands off China! (http://handsoffchina.org/)


Well I have never been to North Korea, but I spent three weeks in China and it is by far the most aggressive Capitalist country on earth. No rules, no regulations entrepreneaurs are able to do anything they want--just don't question the ruling party's hold on power.

The Communists there are the peasents--and they are being used as fodder for the mills of the Capitalists. The members of the Communist Party live in splendor like oriental pashas. (Open a door on their own? Pour their own tea? Carry their own briefcase?--NEVER!)

"Communist" China is dead. But China is the largest and fasting growing Christian nation on earth. As a matter of fact--the question I was asked most when I was there (and I'm no missionary) was, "Tell me of Jesus."

Sorry. :(

Edit: On more thing that really struck me--almost everybody has domestic help. Quite regular people in regular houses or apartments have a maid or two. And if you have a little more you have a butler, too. I mean they live in a 1700sf apartment with TWO servents. The servents stand in some corner when not being occupied because the place is so small. Surreal.

[Per Levy]

on the book itself, its quite funny how it is used by rightwingers to "prove" that socialism is bad. since the book isnt anticommunistic at all, its antitotalitarian and a critic on the stalinist soviet union.


It's a Trotskyist attack on Stalinism

um, no. orwell was not a trotskyist, do works of trotsky had influence on the book or any book of orwell? probally, but that doesnt make those books "trotskyist" or something.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's a Trotskyist attack on Stalinism, Orwell was a self described ''Tory-Anarchist'' but was heavily influenced by Trotsky so it's biased from the beginning. It'd be the same if Trotsky went into power instead of Stalin, a Stalinist would would write a critique of Trotsky's Soviet Union

Are you actually serious? George Orwell denied being an anarchist, and he never claimed to be a Trotskyist (which I presume you mean instead of Tory). And you use the quilty by association fallacy. "George Orwell was a Trotskyist, therefore whatever he said about Stalinism must have been biased".

Animal farm is a critique of totalitarian "socialism" (and all forms of authoritarianism), nothing more, nothing less.

[Per Levy]

China and the DPRK are two remaining countries which stand against Western imperialist hegemony.

no they dont, china is actually saving western imperialism, they want to save the european union and usa. and why is that? because it would be bad for the capitalists in china if the eu and usa goes bankrupt.


Despite US aggresssion and economic sanctions the DPRK has achieved Free medical care, free housing, full employment, free education and basic human safety, things which are still to be desired by the poor and the minorities (Africans) living in the U.S. May the alliance between the DPRK and China continue for the years to come!yes, may the opression of the working class continue for years to come [zyn]. cause that is what these states do, opress the working class. what do you think would happen when the workers of an ipod factory start to occupy the factory because they cant stand the terrible working conditions there anymore? will chinese "communists" will say "good work, one step forward to communism" or will they send the police to free the factory of the workers? and dont even get me started on north korea.

[CommieTroll]

Are you actually serious? George Orwell denied being an anarchist, and he never claimed to be a Trotskyist (which I presume you mean instead of Tory). And you use the quilty by association fallacy. "George Orwell was a Trotskyist, therefore whatever he said about Stalinism must have been biased".

Animal farm is a critique of totalitarian "socialism" (and all forms of authoritarianism), nothing more, nothing less.

I never said he was a Trotskyist, I said he was influenced by Trotsky. I don't know much else about him but I have read somewhere that he considered himself an ''Anarcho-Toryist'' which is probably a joke. I'm well aware that is an attack on authoritarian socialism but its only a work of fiction

[CommieTroll]

China and the DPRK are two remaining countries which stand against Western imperialist hegemony. They stood together in an effort to resist imperialism during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.

Hands off China! (http://handsoffchina.org/)
Hands off the DPRK! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=166)

Despite US aggresssion and economic sanctions the DPRK has achieved Free medical care, free housing, full employment, free education and basic human safety, things which are still to be desired by the poor and the minorities (Africans) living in the U.S. May the alliance between the DPRK and China continue for the years to come!

North Korea is nothing but a liability to China, they just don't need another US ally bordering them. Some people will support any tyrant like Kim Jong-il for the cause of ''anti-imperialism''. North Korea isn't Socialist, it's a monarchy.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=682

[CommunityBeliever]

Sorry, I forgot for a second there that I was on the site of that is home to teh anarcho-trotskyist conspiracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=728).


China is by far the most aggressive Capitalist country on earth.

First of all, I don't support everything that has happened after Mao's death. However, I wouldn't say that China's the most aggressive capitalist country on Earth. The American empire is the most aggressive capitalist country at least militarily.

China's system of "Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics" isn't just capitalist - at the very least it is state capitalist since it has state control of the financial system and the banks and state control of the core of the Chinese economy including power generation, aviation, construction, information technologies, etc.

This economic system of "unfree markets" is clearly superior to the free-market capitalism of the West as it has created considerable economic growth in China. The free market sucks.


No rules, no regulations entrepreneaurs are able to do anything they want--just don't question the ruling party's hold on power.Shouldn't you support China then? Aren't you an "entrepeneur" and a capitalist yourself?


no they dont, china is actually saving western imperialism, they want to save the european union and usa. and why is that? because it would be bad for the capitalists in china if the eu and usa goes bankrupt.That definitely is not true, there still is tension between China and the U.S over the Taiwan issue and the Barrack Obama is due by Oct. 1 to decide rather or not it will support the Taiwanese air force:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201109079573

But the United States is also Taiwan's biggest ally and arms supplier and is duty-bound by legislation to help the island defend itself.

U.S. President Barack Obama is due by Oct. 1 to say what, if anything, his administration plans to do to boost Taiwan's aging air force.

China does have an interest in these countries because exporting capital from their countries aids in their economic development. Additionally, China has had problems creating a consumer base in its own country due in part from the anti-consumer consciousness that arose from Maoist and communist influences.


North Korea is nothing but a liability to China, they just don't need another US ally bordering them. Some people will support any tyrant like Kim Jong-il for the cause of ''anti-imperialism''. North Korea isn't Socialist, it's a monarchy.I have heard these criticisms before. What do you think about the fact that the DPRK has experienced enormous progress and guarantees health care among other things?

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=680

The DPRK has an extensive and comprehensive healthcare system infrastructure, and all services are free to the people. [4] Under the management of the ministry of public health, the core of public health policy has always been preventive medicine and the promotion of good health.

Policies focusing on preventative medicine were adopted on a wide scale during the period of socialist construction in the 1950s, with a focus on health education, hygiene at home and at work, preventing environmental pollution, immunisation against childhood and communicable diseases, and daily exercise.

Achievements in public health have been attained by developing widespread support for public health, conducting public health work as a mass movement, and avoiding the implementation of policies that may have a negative effect on the health of population. In 2003-2004, 23.3. percent of the national budget was allocated to economic development and 40.5 percent to public health, education, social insurance and social security. [5]

[Agent Equality]

Sorry, I forgot for a second there that I was on the site of that is home to teh anarcho-trotskyist conspiracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=728).



First of all, I don't support everything that has happened after Mao's death. However, I wouldn't say that China's the most aggressive capitalist country on Earth. The American empire is the most aggressive capitalist country at least militarily.

China's system of "Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics" isn't just capitalist - at the very least it is state capitalist since it has state control of the financial system and the banks and state control of the core of the Chinese economy including power generation, aviation, construction, information technologies, etc.

This economic system of "unfree markets" is clearly superior to the free-market capitalism of the West as it has created considerable economic growth in China. The free market sucks.

Shouldn't you support China then? Aren't you an "entrepeneur" and a capitalist yourself?

That definitely is not true, there still is tension between China and the U.S over the Taiwan issue and the Barrack Obama is due by Oct. 1 to decide rather or not it will support the Taiwanese air force:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201109079573

But the United States is also Taiwan's biggest ally and arms supplier and is duty-bound by legislation to help the island defend itself.

U.S. President Barack Obama is due by Oct. 1 to say what, if anything, his administration plans to do to boost Taiwan's aging air force.

China does have an interest in these countries because exporting capital from their countries aids in their economic development. Additionally, China has had problems creating a consumer base in its own country due in part from the anti-consumer consciousness that arose from Maoist and communist influences.

I have heard these criticisms before. What do you think about the fact that the DPRK has experienced enormous progress and guarantees health care among other things?

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=680

The DPRK has an extensive and comprehensive healthcare system infrastructure, and all services are free to the people. [4] Under the management of the ministry of public health, the core of public health policy has always been preventive medicine and the promotion of good health.

Policies focusing on preventative medicine were adopted on a wide scale during the period of socialist construction in the 1950s, with a focus on health education, hygiene at home and at work, preventing environmental pollution, immunisation against childhood and communicable diseases, and daily exercise.

Achievements in public health have been attained by developing widespread support for public health, conducting public health work as a mass movement, and avoiding the implementation of policies that may have a negative effect on the health of population. In 2003-2004, 23.3. percent of the national budget was allocated to economic development and 40.5 percent to public health, education, social insurance and social security. [5]

You Maoists never cease to amaze me with your antics. :rolleyes: Its quite funny actually.

Honestly, even though its cliche, ill just say this: If you like DPRK so much, why don't you gtfo of Imperialist America and go live in the DPRK. Have fun with your "healthcare" when you're starving your ass off inside a labor camp because you dared to say anything negative about the great leader.

And if you try and use another bullshit source to say that that won't happen to you I'm just going to laugh my ass off at you.

[CommieTroll]

The DPRK has an extensive and comprehensive healthcare system infrastructure, and all services are free to the people. [4] Under the management of the ministry of public health, the core of public health policy has always been preventive medicine and the promotion of good health.

Policies focusing on preventative medicine were adopted on a wide scale during the period of socialist construction in the 1950s, with a focus on health education, hygiene at home and at work, preventing environmental pollution, immunisation against childhood and communicable diseases, and daily exercise.

Achievements in public health have been attained by developing widespread support for public health, conducting public health work as a mass movement, and avoiding the implementation of policies that may have a negative effect on the health of population. In 2003-2004, 23.3. percent of the national budget was allocated to economic development and 40.5 percent to public health, education, social insurance and social security. [5]

And I've heard that before too. I wasn't mentioning healthcare at all. I was talking about the mass food shortages and the nature of the North Korean government, it's not even a dictatorship of the proletariat. I've heard countless news of the ''greatness'' and ''successes'' of North Korea on here before and right now I'm too tired to even discuss any of that.

[CommunityBeliever]

You Maoists never cease to amaze me with your antics. :rolleyes: Its quite funny actually.

Almost all Maoists are staunch anti-imperialists and we don't treat imperialist endeavours against countries like the DPRK, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Aghanistan etc as something that is "funny."


Honestly, even though its cliche, ill just say this: If you like DPRK so much, why don't you gtfo of Imperialist America and go live in the DPRK. Have fun with your "healthcare" when you're starving your ass off inside a labor camp because you dared to say anything negative about the great leader. I don't see any distinction between what you just said there and what a typical American right-wing conservative would say. Most of us have already heard right-wingers say something along the lines of "go live in Russia."


And I've heard that before too. I wasn't mentioning healthcare at all. I was talking about the mass food shortages and the nature of the North Korean governmentIf it was merely another "monarchy" or a liberal capitalist country then it wouldn't be able to maintain successful social programs. Everytime there has been a dictatorship of the bourgoisie they have put an end to social programs, and in the case of non-Western countries they have looted them and turned them into third world countries and bastions of imperialist exploitation.

The DPRK on the other hand is one of the few anti-imperialist countries around. The U.S refers to it as a "state sponsor of terrorism."

[Bud Struggle]

First of all, I don't support everything that has happened after Mao's death. However, I wouldn't say that China's the most aggressive capitalist country on Earth. The American empire is the most aggressive capitalist country at least militarily.

China's system of "Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics" isn't just capitalist - at the very least it is state capitalist since it has state control of the financial system and the banks and state control of the core of the Chinese economy including power generation, aviation, construction, information technologies, etc.

It I was an 22 yo American with a MBA from Wharton or Harvard I'd be learning Chinese and heading ever to Shanghai in a heartbeat. That's where I 'd make my billion.


This economic system of "unfree markets" is clearly superior to the free-market capitalism of the West as it has created considerable economic growth in China. The free market sucks.

If I could make a billion dollars--I don't care what you call the system


Shouldn't you support China then? Aren't you an "entrepeneur" and a capitalist yourself?Don't want to be premature--but I most likely will be.

And Taiwan: It's and entertainment for both sides. Something to argue about to appease the masses.

[CommunityBeliever]

Why do you want a billion dollars? That seems pretty excessive to me.

[Bud Struggle]

Why do you want a billion dollars? That seems pretty excessive to me.

It is--but I don't have an MBA from Wharton or Harvard. Lots do, though-----

[Per Levy]

China's system of "Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics" isn't just capitalist - at the very least it is state capitalist since it has state control of the financial system and the banks and state control of the core of the Chinese economy including power generation, aviation, construction, information technologies, etc.

This economic system of "unfree markets" is clearly superior to the free-market capitalism of the West as it has created considerable economic growth in China. The free market sucks.

yeah go tell that to the familys of workers who killed themself because of the terrible working conditions they have to suffer through, tell that the workers who have to hold still because they cant unionize against these terrible working conditions. its all fine because chinese capitalism has "considerable economic growth" so its all worth it, all the suffering of the working class. besides the chinese communist party supports free market worldwide.


That definitely is not true

oh really, so china doesnt want to save the eu and usa, it recently offered to bailout greece(for more influence of course) and thanks to china the usa still hasnt default.


there still is tension between China and the U.S over the Taiwan issue and the Barrack Obama is due by Oct.

oh my, china is "anti-imperialist" because it has tensions with the usa about taiwan. china has also tensions with the west about who of them should exploit african nations, "anti imperialism" at work i see.


China does have an interest in these countries because exporting capital from their countries aids in their economic development. Additionally, China has had problems creating a consumer base in its own country due in part from the anti-consumer consciousness that arose from Maoist and communist influences.

couldnt it be more like that the chinese workers get payed so less that they can afford to be consumers in the sense of the west? on the other hand the upper party burocrats do actually have the money to be consumers.

[Geiseric]

Almost all Maoists are staunch anti-imperialists and we don't treat imperialist endeavours against countries like the DPRK, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Aghanistan etc as something that is "funny."

I don't see any distinction between what you just said there and what a typical American right-wing conservative would say. Most of us have already heard right-wingers say something along the lines of "go live in Russia."

If it was merely another "monarchy" or a liberal capitalist country then it wouldn't be able to maintain successful social programs. Everytime there has been a dictatorship of the bourgoisie they have put an end to social programs, and in the case of non-Western countries they have looted them and turned them into third world countries and bastions of imperialist exploitation.

The DPRK on the other hand is one of the few anti-imperialist countries around. The U.S refers to it as a "state sponsor of terrorism."

you may be anti imperialist, but maoists in practice have a hard on for national bourgeoisie, which sells out to international bourgeoisie as is the nature of capitalism. What social programs did mao or stalin start, that actually helped people?

[Red Commissar]

While Animal Farm and 1984 have been portrayed as against 'Stalinism' and/or authoritarianism in general, they're usually taught in an anti-Communist lens in most schools. At least that's how it was with me, they taught along with Ayn Rand's 'anthem'.

[Dumb]

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.
-George Orwell, "Why I Write" (1946)

Right-wingers tend to misconstrue Orwell because, ironically, Orwell actually directed most of his work towards the left wing; 1984 was a polemic intended to push the British left away from Stalinism and towards...well, Orwell never really specified, which is his main shortcoming. When you read a polemic against the USSR that doesn't include much of a left-wing alternative, it's pretty clear to see why right-wingers would misunderstand Orwell to be one of their own.