Animal Farm; is Orwell a Cynic of Revolution?

Does Animal Farm suggest Communism will never work?

Orwell’s Animal Farm is a scathing historical allegory of Soviet politics and, more speculatively, a harsh prediction on why Communism will never create the egalitarian society Marxists envision.

The anthropomorphism of the animals on Manor Farm represent a microcosm of Soviet society in 1917 which saw the fall of Tsar and the ensuing power struggle of Stalin and Trotsky with their opposing views on how the revolution ought to manifest. The parallel of events during Stalins’ rule and the struggles of the animals under Napoleons tyranny is glaringly stark.

Napoleon and Snowball, representing Stalin and Trotsky, have conflicting ideas of Animalism and the direction of the future of the revolution. Stalin's success in removing his opposition and exiling Trotsky leads to a succession of harrowing events which are cynically explored here in Orwell's writing.

And on Animal Farm, following the exile of rival Snowball, we indeed see it all; we witness propaganda (through Squealers' speeches), rule by terror (execution of dissenting pigs), the manipulations of history (destroying Snowball’s image) and also nepotism (a school only for Napoleon’s offspring). The key ideals of Communism are violated; the unequal distribution of resources and exploitation become the heart-breaking norm of a society of animals who had started with the most idealistic of intentions.

All of these events are counter to Major’s Animalism (aka Marxism) and betray the very essence of the revolution. This novella is indeed a “parody of the betrayal of Socialist ideals” (Letemendia, 1992), that much is clear but with the gut-wrenching ending of the animals realizing their blind trust has been misplaced, being unable to tell apart the pigs from their original oppressors, it raises the question:

Does Orwell believe all revolutions are futile?

The pigs, Napoleon, Squealer and even arguably Snowball (who, very early on, allowed the pigs to keep the entire harvest of apples), seem to illustrate that the power of leaders will ultimately be used in self-interest. And according to Orwell himself every proletariat movement is betrayed by those “at the top” and true equality “never arrives.”

This was certainly true in the case of Soviet Russia where Stalin utilized his power, through propaganda and fear, to eliminate rivals, push ahead devastating economic policies and ultimately become 'allies' with Capitalist Britain and America in the Tehran Conference of 1943. The latter event cleverly paralleled by Orwell in the last scene where the neighboring capitalist farmers join the pigs on a comical 'state visit'.

Orwells' historical allegory of Soviet society is clearly an exploration of what went so terribly wrong and how the animals strayed so far from Majors' Utopia of Animal Farm. The cyclical nature of the narrative and the slow physical evolution of the pigs who become caricatures of their previous oppressors suggests an inevitability of political corruption. As Orwell himself said, "men are only decent when they are powerless."

It seems even with idealistic aims, we will become everything that we despise, if given the chance.

Orwell's prediction of the power-hungry nature of leaders is mirrored both in history and in our present. The ruling elite in Communist China have become another "predatory power group" (Hamlem, 2000) spurred by human self-interest. According to the 'Economics of Animal Farm' there is sharp economic inequality between the ruling members and non-members of China's Communist party, which is mirrored in Animal Farm by Napoleon and Boxer. It is inevitable that those who lead will carve ways of bestowing economic favor upon themselves, in the case of China this is being done through a shift away from Marxist centralization, a move motivated by personal gain. It seems equality is doomed because of our very nature.

So, is a society where all are equal and governed by benevolence impossible?

I think not.

The events which transpire on Animal Farm can be interpreted as a haunting lesson for the naive proletariat instead of cynicism to all revolutions. It is a warning against the possible corruption of power. The animals on Animal Farm have "class structures (which are) immutable by their functions on the farm" (Letemendia, 1992), this isn't true for humans, we are not "naturally stupid" and biologically chained to roles which exclude us from power. We should not hand over the reins and have our voices muted. According to Letemednia, Orwell is not despairing on a proletariat revolution, he is advocating for the the need "for education and self-confidence in any working class movement if it is to remain democratic in character."

On a final note, it is certainly true that Communism is starkly vulnerable to the whims of self-interest but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the corruption of power and manipulation of society is only a presence in extreme political states.

Or maybe we are safe in a comfortably 'centrist' and democratic country? Revolutions and their messy aftermaths are, after all, only the preoccupation of other less stable societies. We are lucky not to see the parody of Animal Farm playing before our eyes. We don't see mindless slogans ("Four legs good, two legs bad") being repeated nonsensically by a mob (B̶r̶e̶x̶i̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶B̶r̶e̶x̶i̶t̶) we don't see the scapegoating of imaginary threats (Snowball) that misdirect all our anger (R̶e̶f̶u̶g̶e̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶n̶g̶h̶i̶e̶s̶). And we most definitely do not see self-interest and preferential treatment (P̶r̶i̶v̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶h̶o̶o̶l̶s̶,̶ ̶M̶P̶ ̶w̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶C̶u̶m̶m̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶s̶c̶a̶n̶d̶a̶l̶) because after all everyone in Britain is equal, t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶r̶a̶c̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶r̶e̶e̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶t̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶.̶ ̶

Revolutions are needed for others, not for us.