Are George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984” a critique of communism?

No, “Animal Farm” and “1984” are not a critique of communism; both novels attempt to criticise totalitarianism. In fact, Orwell himself was a Democratic-Socialist; and was actually under the surveillance by the MI5 as a suspected communist. In his part 2 of "The Road to Wigan Pier" Orwell defines: "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown."

For this reason, even though George Orwell was a socialist, he was also an anti-Stalinist; since he considered Stalin’s government a totalitarian regime. In 1936 he travelled to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists. However, he did not fight alongside the Spanish Communist Party (PCE) -which was the main communist party at that time- as the PCE supported Stalin. Instead, he joined the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), as they were communists but also anti-Stalinists. During his days in Spain he wrote “Homage to Catalonia”, which praises the benefits of anarcho-syndicalism.

“Animal Farm” is believed to outline the corruption of the communist ideals set by Stalin. And “1984” depicts life under totalitarian rule.

14 comments:

  1. George Orwell was not a communist, he was a a socialistic democrat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True story bro.

      Delete
    2. Thanks. That's more accurate than "anarcho-communist", and therefore will be changed.

      Delete
  2. I don't believe you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me neither.

      Delete
    2. I realise most of the western world ignores or disbelieves what's on this blog; that's the reason I wrote it.

      Delete
  3. Ok. I still don't believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm actually from India so I'm not from the western world and I still disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uggh- I wrote a mini essay and it vanished down the rabbit hole.
    When people are using the words " I don't believe you" they should be saying " I disagree with you". That also implies that one has read the books discussed AND have read about the author's life. I have done both, many years ago. In high school I read Animal Farm twice, it made such an impression on me. I do not believe it is anti-communist so much as anti-totalitarian. Or , more precise, it examines how political idealism can be corrupted by power. When I read it first, I looked at it in context to the time it was written and saw it as anti-fascist. My father's copy of Animal Farm had a forward that saw the story as anti-communist because it was published in the 1950s. He had it right in there with his Ayn Rand novels (uggh, it was slumming). I was hyper aware of how these two perspectives in time could alter the experience of the reader. I have tried to get my communist daughter to read the story. She . Will. Not. Someone from one of these sites analyzed it as anti-communist and she is letting them decide for her. It is a pity, because I have used this book several times to make analogies to the political events unfolding as we speak. This convinces me that, unlike Rand, Orwell is writing about the corrupting influences of power as opposed to a specific political philosophy. He is an amazing author, but as many great authors, he lets the reader color in the details of his message. His story is not rigid, addressing a specific . It is flexible, addressing a larger universal experience. It is applicable to situations in communism, fascism, theocracies and capitalism. It can even apply to situations that are not exactly totalitarian. Are we there yet in the States?

    I urge people to carefully read these novels as novels, and not as political analogies. They are complex stories, some of the best works of that period. They have have political perspective that is much more profound than a reaction to a single political philosophy. I read them more than thirty years ago and find myself quoting specific passages (no, not by heart) because something I see today reminds me of what he wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Communism in its different variants as practiced in the 20th century is one of the two the foremost examples of totalitarianism, along with nazism. So yes, Orwell is criticising you. Don't try to weasel out with lies and half-assed truths.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course, fanatical Communists and Russophiles generally can be respected, even if they are mistaken. But for people like ourselves, who suspect that something has gone very wrong with the Soviet Union, I consider that willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty.
    George Orwell, in a letter to John Middleton Murry (5 August 1944), published in The Collected Essays, Journalism, & Letters, George Orwell : As I Please, 1943-1945 (2000), edited by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus

    I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. ~ George Orwell (actual socialist)

    I would not condemn Stalin and his associates merely for their barbaric and undemocratic methods. It is quite possible that, even with the best intentions, they could not have acted otherwise under the conditions prevailing there.
    But on the other hand it was of the utmost importance to me that people in western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917. It is partly that they do not want to understand (i.e. they want to believe that, somewhere, a really Socialist country does actually exist), and partly that, being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life, totalitarianism is completely incomprehensible to them.
    George Orwell, in the original preface to Animal Farm; as published in George Orwell : Some Materials for a Bibliography (1953) by Ian R. Willison


    "We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples."
    --from ANIMAL FARM (1945)

    As for 1984
    My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.
    -Collected Essays [21]

    ReplyDelete