"All animals are equal, but some animals" [...]

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is meant by the expression (taken from Animal Farm):

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[LuXe]

Probably just meaning that some, get to have more than others.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It was the bureaucracy of the pigs that were redefining the legal character of their regime in order to legitimize their rule over the rest of the farm.

Personally, I think Orwell should of left that part out of the book, for historical purposes. The Soviet Union wouldn't of officially decided that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" until it's collapse.

[Whitten]

As others have summed up, its the concept that the pig's regime derived its legitimacy from the egalitarian tenents of animalism, while the reality was that the pigs assumed the role of the humans and assumed a dictatorship over the other animals. Just make sure you don't read to much into it, its just a work of fiction, afterall.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Thanks. :)

Just trying to understand the train of thought of those who use this quote as an argument.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 08, 2007 09:08 pm
Just trying to understand the train of thought of those who use this quote as an argument.
The phrase from the book sound to me like sarcasm. Why else choose a self-contradictory phrase, when combinations of words that aren't self-contradictory are readily available?

[Tower of Bebel]

Animal farm is fiction, but of course there are similarities with the Soviet-Union. The book has no materialist explanation for the formation of the pig bureaucracy.

[synthesis]

It's a reference to examples of how ideology plays out into the real world in ways that often seem contradictory or self-destructive.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by mikelepore+September 09, 2007 04:34 am--> (mikelepore @ September 09, 2007 04:34 am)
Karl Marx's [email protected] 08, 2007 09:08 pm
Just trying to understand the train of thought of those who use this quote as an argument.
The phrase from the book sound to me like sarcasm. Why else choose a self-contradictory phrase, when combinations of words that aren't self-contradictory are readily available? [/b]
It's not sarcasm, it's satire. The phrase was intended to make fun of the ridiculous self-contradiction of communist societies that proclaimed equality for all but always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society.

The entire Animal Farm story is satire from beginning to end and cannot really be understood without knowing what it is satirizing.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 01:14 am
It's not sarcasm, it's satire.

Your answer is better than my answer in decribing the author's purpose. I thought my word would be better, not in commenting on the author's purpose, but in response to the question, "what is meant by the expression."

_______



The phrase was intended to make fun of the ridiculous self-contradiction of communist societies that proclaimed equality for all but always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society.

I agree with that, except for your omission of quotation marks and other qualifiers.

I would have written your phrase as: ...the ridiculous self-contradiction of the so-called "communist" [sic] societies that proclaimed equality for all but always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society.

It is evident that the so-called "communist" [sic] governments introduced another form of class rule, and a change of masters rather than the elimination of masters.

The so-called "communist" [sic] organizations around the world which operate as apologists for the the so-called "communist" [sic] regimes are as inconsistent as the regimes that they support.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 01:14 am
It's not sarcasm, it's satire. The phrase was intended to make fun of the ridiculous self-contradiction of communist societies that proclaimed equality for all but always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society.

The entire Animal Farm story is satire from beginning to end and cannot really be understood without knowing what it is satirizing.
Eric Blair was very interested in linguistics, and the phrase is a reflection of this. It is meant to describe the concept of "doublespeak" described in 1984. He didn't think communist societes "always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society," but he was certainly critical of the Soviet - aligned Communist parties.

[Whitten]

It is evident that the so-called "communist" [sic] governments introduced another form of class rule, and a change of masters rather than the elimination of masters.

How does a bureaucracy constitute a class upon itself with a seperate relationship to the means of production?

[Forward Union]

They're claiming that within communism the idea of equality is farcical as some have greater privileges than others, and that the twisted rhetoric of "communist regimes" was designed to encourage a belief that the citizens were all equal.

They do of course ignore the fact that "animal farm" was, if anything a trotskyist book. And that the criticisms are only applicable to Stalins Russia, and not communism in general.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 11, 2007 11:26 am
They do of course ignore the fact that "animal farm" was, if anything a trotskyist book. And that the criticisms are only applicable to Stalins Russia, and not communism in general.
It's amazing how ignorant the right wingers are of Eric Blair; they try to champion him as some great anti-communist. One wonders if they've read more than 1984 by him, or if they've even read that.

[luxemburg89]

Eric Blair; they try to champion him as some great anti-communist. One wonders if they've read more than 1984 by him, or if they've even read that.



We are discussing him in literary terms, where his name is George Orwell - he is the creation of Eric Arthur Blair, Orwell is the author, and so that is the name you should apply to him with regard to his books - in his private life you may use Blair but in literary circles Eric Arthur Blair does not exist - please recognise that distinction.

He was not an anti-communist; but he was, indeed, an anti-Communist - that is the members of worldwide Communist (the term used to describe Stalinists at the time) parties, but he was a communist - in that he held communist beliefs. I think there is a general ignorance of his political views amongst the right-wing and an ignorance of the difference between Communists and communists - but I suppose we should expect that. Many of us are ignorant of the difference between Fascism and Nazism after all. To be fair to pusher robot, and this is uncommon amongst capitalists, he seems to recognise the distinction.

[Dean]

Originally posted by luxemburg89+September 11, 2007 07:37 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ September 11, 2007 07:37 pm)
Eric Blair; they try to champion him as some great anti-communist. One wonders if they've read more than 1984 by him, or if they've even read that.



We are discussing him in literary terms, where his name is George Orwell - he is the creation of Eric Arthur Blair, Orwell is the author, and so that is the name you should apply to him with regard to his books - in his private life you may use Blair but in literary circles Eric Arthur Blair does not exist - please recognise that distinction.

[/b]
I prefer to refer to people rather than names they use to represent their literary "form." One should note that his essays were also titles under the name "George Orwell," and it is hardly accurate to say "Orwell" rather than "Blair" thinks this or that, when they refer to real experiences of his and his ideas on various topics.

I can see where that would be a literary convention, to use the adopted name "Orwell," but I don't agree that it is necessary for any specific understanding or discussion of him, his literature or his ideas. I think the names are more or less interchangeable in this regard, but I prefer his real name for reasons of clarity / fact.


He was not an anti-communist; but he was, indeed, an anti-Communist - that is the members of worldwide Communist (the term used to describe Stalinists at the time) parties, but he was a communist - in that he held communist beliefs. I think there is a general ignorance of his political views amongst the right-wing and an ignorance of the difference between Communists and communists - but I suppose we should expect that. Many of us are ignorant of the difference between Fascism and Nazism after all. To be fair to pusher robot, and this is uncommon amongst capitalists, he seems to recognise the distinction.
I already pointed this out, with slightly different wording:

Dean
He didn't think communist societes "always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society," but he was certainly critical of the Soviet - aligned Communist parties.
As for pusher robot, he seems to be saying that it was an attack on communism in general, but I am not saying he doesn't see the difference between communism and the Communist parties of the time.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:29 am
How does a bureaucracy constitute a class upon itself with a seperate relationship to the means of production?
When you say "how", do you mean in the linguistic sense, that ownership has always meant the legal power to make the decisions and extract the benefits, and therefore, in a Leninist system, "the central committee of the party" is a club of private owners of the means of production .... or do you mean "how" in the strategic sense, as in eliminating opposition by means of condemning millions of people to death camps ....

[Whitten]

Originally posted by mikelepore+September 11, 2007 08:30 pm--> (mikelepore @ September 11, 2007 08:30 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:29 am
How does a bureaucracy constitute a class upon itself with a seperate relationship to the means of production?
When you say "how", do you mean in the linguistic sense, that ownership has always meant the legal power to make the decisions and extract the benefits, and therefore, in a Leninist system, "the central committee of the party" is a club of private owners of the means of production .... or do you mean "how" in the strategic sense, as in eliminating opposition by means of condemning millions of people to death camps .... [/b]
In the linguistic sense.

The bureaucrats in the SU may have been detatched decision making from the people as a whole, but to classify them as a seperate class is to suppose their relationship to the means of production was fundamentally different from other classes. Their relationship to the means of production was more comparable to that of any western bureaucrat than to a capitalist.

[pusher robot]

As for pusher robot, he seems to be saying that it was an attack on communism in general, but I am not saying he doesn't see the difference between communism and the Communist parties of the time.

No, though admittedly I wasn't very clear. I was saying that he was satirizing the prominent communist societies of his time and the gross abuses and contradictions of their stated principles they tolerated. My point is that one cannot really understand Animal Farm without knowing something about those particular societies and how they failed (chiefly the U.S.S.R., of course). I am well aware that the author held leftist beliefs and his bitter disappointment at their practical implementation surely led him to be among those societies' most caustic critics.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 09:18 pm

As for pusher robot, he seems to be saying that it was an attack on communism in general, but I am not saying he doesn't see the difference between communism and the Communist parties of the time.

No, though admittedly I wasn't very clear. I was saying that he was satirizing the prominent communist societies of his time and the gross abuses and contradictions of their stated principles they tolerated. My point is that one cannot really understand Animal Farm without knowing something about those particular societies and how they failed (chiefly the U.S.S.R., of course). I am well aware that the author held leftist beliefs and his bitter disappointment at their practical implementation surely led him to be among those societies' most caustic critics.
I stand corrected, then. I'll admit it was hard for me to tell if you were referring to communism or the leninist-style states at the time, but this part: "always resulted in the governing elite living far above the rest of society" seemed to be talking about the idea rather than the USSR etc.

[mikelepore]

more comparable to that of any western bureaucrat than to a capitalist

In some ways. I'm not one of the people who call the Soviet system "state capitalism." To me capitalism implies industrial funding by use of the stock market. I reject the descriptor "state capitalism" on that basis. It is a relatively new form of class divided society that classical Marxism has no name for, because it appeared for the first time 34 years after Marx died.

However, comparison to the bureaucrat under capitalism also has a deficiency. The capitalist bureaucrat receives policy from a separate and identifiable boss, although the policy may later get mangled in the execution stages. The leading stockholders (sometimes, and very roughly, the set of individuals and institutions who own half a million shares or more) set policy in a fundamental way. There are layers of bureaucrats who reinterpret the policy but can't obviously reverse it. The day-to-day action of Walmart is a bureaucratized implementation of the direct orders received from the Walton family. In the Soviet Union, the apex of the hierarchy didn't receive policy orders from elsewhere else and then implement reinterpretations of them, but fundamentally determined policy. That makes the Central Committee more like the Walton family, and less like the corporate layers.

For the worker, of course, the existential quality is the same, in the U.S. or the USSR. The workers isn't considered a partner in the management, but an outsider who was brought in as an unavoidable business expense, a resource called labor power that has to get mixed into the production recipe just like the chemicals and other supplies. In both systems the worker is made to understand that critial thinking is not welcomed, that voicing a suggestion for improvement is considered an act of disloyalty, getting one classified as a trouble-maker. In both the U.S. and the USSR, the worker's role is to shut up and obey orders. I think it's technically accurate to call it a type of class divided society.

[Whitten]

I would argue that the proletariat in the USSR played the role of the stock-holders in the west. That is, that the bureaucracy was supposed to implement their demands but the bureaucratic process naturally deformed the results.

[luxemburg89]

I prefer to refer to people rather than names they use to represent their literary "form." One should note that his essays were also titles under the name "George Orwell," and it is hardly accurate to say "Orwell" rather than "Blair" thinks this or that, when they refer to real experiences of his and his ideas on various topics.


Actually you're totally wrong. Work should be attributed to the name given to the author that penned it, that is pseudonyms not names - he changed his name for literary reasons - therefore, in a literary context, he should be referred to as 'Orwell' (essays included); regardless of what you prefer to call him. Or did you not do English language at school..?

[Dean]

Originally posted by luxemburg89+September 11, 2007 11:44 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ September 11, 2007 11:44 pm)
I prefer to refer to people rather than names they use to represent their literary "form." One should note that his essays were also titles under the name "George Orwell," and it is hardly accurate to say "Orwell" rather than "Blair" thinks this or that, when they refer to real experiences of his and his ideas on various topics.


Actually you're totally wrong. Work should be attributed to the name given to the author that penned it, that is pseudonyms not names - he changed his name for literary reasons - therefore, in a literary context, he should be referred to as 'Orwell' (essays included); regardless of what you prefer to call him. Or did you not do English language at school..? [/b]
What is your problem?

for one thing, I remarked that I thought you were right:

Dean
I can see where that would be a literary convention

For another, I did "do" english at school. Why do you continue to post antagonistic crap towards me?

[mikelepore]

Whitten, what is your meaning for the terms bureaucracy, bureaucratic process?

There is no way for any government to even know the will of the people, much less implement it, when there is only one name on the ballot, running for office requires the approval of one official party, starting a new party is illegal. That, on top of the same hegemonic mind-control that the U.S. has, namely, having debates that are featured the educational system and in the broadcast and print media being limited to a permissible range. Oh, I almost forgot to mention the weird legal concept of "slander against the state", which the Soviet Union cited to imprison people who expressed disagreement with policy.

Is that bureaucracy? The word sounds euphemistic to me. I was leaning toward the word "totalitarianism."

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:50 am
Whitten, what is your meaning for the terms bureaucracy, bureaucratic process?

There is no way for any government to even know the will of the people, much less implement it, when there is only one name on the ballot, running for office requires the approval of one official party, starting a new party is illegal. That, on top of the same hegemonic mind-control that the U.S. has, namely, having debates that are featured the educational system and in the broadcast and print media being limited to a permissible range. Oh, I almost forgot to mention the weird legal concept of "slander against the state", which the Soviet Union cited to imprison people who expressed disagreement with policy.

Is that bureaucracy? The word sounds euphemistic to me. I was leaning toward the word "totalitarianism."
The soviet Union was a workers state which degraded in democratic character and stagnated due to the deformations in its power structure caused by the excesses of bureaucracy. The key point here is that there are no distinct classes with special relationships to the means of production present within the state, simply that the superstructure put in place by the soviets following the revolution was one which presented the ideal breeding grown for corruption and inefficiency.