Animal Farm by George Orwell - Essay Example

Animal Farm When George Orwell wrote his famous novel Animal Farm, the world had just undergone major change. It was 1945 and the world had just seen the end of the Second World War. Hitler had been defeated, Churchill had been voted out of office, Mussolini and President Roosevelt had just died. Stalin was the last of the great world leaders that had contributed to the end of the war, causing much of the world to view Russia and Stalin in a favorable light. However, Orwell saw a darker side to this reality, one in which Stalin was not the humanitarian he presented to the outside world. Within his novel, Animal Farm, he attempted to present this alternate view of reality through the characters and events that took place on a fictional farm. Everything associated with this farm is a symbol of something else. Had Orwell had written the book today and were a U.S. citizen, it likely would had symbolically referred to the disastrous blunders and over-reaches of executive power during the Bush administration. In Animal Farm, the main character Napoleon is presented as having the same sort of idealistic dreams and goals for humanity that were expressed by Stalin in his early years. He is seen to have incredible success early in the story as he leads the animals to take over the farm, helps organize them to produce and manage the farm in an efficient way and aids them in protecting the farm from the invading human farmers. Liking the taste of power, he begins changing the laws he himself wrote in order to allow himself and his close companions’ space to enjoy the extra luxuries they’ve discovered, but it becomes necessary to break increasingly more laws and infringe even more upon the freedoms and rights of his fellow animals in order to keep the peace. He does this with ever-increasing brutality as can be seen in his dealings with the hens in chapter 7. This scenario mirrors the justifications given for the suspension of civil liberties so as to better combat the ‘war on terror, i.e., the PATRIOT Act of 2003. ’ (Orwell, 2004). A close examination of the Act, which the members of Congress did not do prior to voting, confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claim that the Bush administration has a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act has reproved Bush’s agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” (Etzioni, 2004: 9). In the end, after he has managed to drive off or kill most of his friends and supporters, Napoleon the pig has changed so much that the other animals, as they look through the window at a dinner party Napoleon is hosting for some of the neighboring human farmers, can no longer tell his face from those of the humans he is associating with. Bush has also managed to drive off most of his supporters and killed support for his political party and ideology. The Bush administration also justifies the use of torture tactics in secretive prisons so as to extract information from ‘enemy combatants’ as another important tool in the ‘war on terror’. A side by side comparison between Orwell’s character Napoleon and the real-life person of Joseph Stalin illustrates an almost mirror image, fully portraying Orwell’s negative impression of Stalinist Russia. Napoleon and Stalin share a similar weakness for public speaking that turns out to be a strength in their primary opposition – Snowball for Napoleon and Trotsky for Stalin. They each demonstrated a willingness to do anything for power, proving themselves cruel, brutal and willing to kill to reach their goals. This theme would certainly correspond to the current administration and would integrate well with a contemporary version or sequel of the book. Where Napoleon had dogs, Moses and Squealer to help him control the animals, Stalin had the KGB, the sanctioned state church and his own propaganda machine. Another familiar-sounding theme in today’s terms. While Napoleon sets out to honor the teachings of Old Major, he deviates drastically from the true path to the destruction of the dream. This is similar to the way in which Stalin set out to follow the teachings of Karl Marx regarding socialism, but allowed his own desire for power destroy the Russian dream. In addition, Napoleon is able to take control of the farm immediately following the revolution rather than waiting for the brief and tragic reign of Lenin to end. Old Major, of course, represents the venerated philosophy Karl Marx and his teachings regarding socialism. It is Old Major who incites the revolution to follow even though he dies before it actually happens. He does this by educating the other animals about the true nature of the world: “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.” (Orwell, 2004, ch. 1). He speaks of the injustices committed upon the animal kingdom by mankind and the importance of throwing off the yolk of man’s influence if they were ever going to be able to enjoy the bounty of their labors as they deserved, creating Animalism in the process of giving this one speech. The basic principles of Animalism become the first laws of the farm following the animal revolution: “No animal must live in a house, or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade. All the habits of Man are evil. And above all, no animal must ever tyrannize over his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal.” (Orwell, 2004, ch. 1). Little growth is seen in this character as he dies three days later peacefully in his sleep, however, a close examination of his speech demonstrates something of an alternative motive of his own in that while he decries the abuses of mankind upon the animals, he also indicates his own life has been long and happy. Old Major could easily represent the sentiments echoed by the Democratic opposition in Congress, the general philosophy of the civilized world which is overwhelmingly opposed to the actions of the Bush administration or it could be argued that Major could represent Barack Obama. Obama likely would admit it publicly but his and Marx’s views or not incredibly far apart. Both Stalin and Napoleon were lacking in speaking skills, which they each made up for with the development of their own personal propaganda machines, circumstances that are easily recognized today. For Napoleon, this machine existed in the form of the pig Squealer. Squealer has a healthy grasp of the art of language, skillfully using rhetoric to convince the other animals of the rightness of Napoleon’s directives much the same as Bush is surrounded by personally loyal individuals with similar traits. Following the distressing expulsion of Snowball from the farm and the new order of farm management, Squealer is the one who circulates among the animals to calm them. “Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” (Orwell, 2004, ch. 5). No picture need be drawn here to make a parallel between Orwell’s time and today. Like Napoleon’s relationship to Stalin during the time-period the book was written and today with Bush. Old Major’s relationship with Karl Marx is unmistakable and at least somewhat similar to Obama. Another important character in the story is Snowball. At the beginning of the story, Napoleon and Snowball emerge as being very similar in character. They are both whole-hearted converts to Old Major’s ideas of Animalism and both wish to do their utmost to further the cause, which required the acceptance of leadership positions in a society that was supposed to espouse equality for all. However, it soon becomes obvious that they cannot work together. “Snowball and Napoleon were by far the most active in the debates. But it was noticed that these two were never in agreement: whatever suggestion either of them made, the other could be counted to oppose it” (Orwell, 2004, ch. 5). In today’s version of the book, Snowball could be Senator John Kerry who lost to Bush in 2004. Since Snowball (Kerry) is able to prove himself the better speaker of the two pigs as well as the cleverer, Napoleon (Bush through Karl Rove) is able to succeed by his willingness to use terror. Instead of working on committees, Napoleon works on training the specialized guard dogs he’s stolen from a litter. He also embarks on a propaganda campaign designed to smear Snowball’s name, constantly blaming Snowball for anything that goes wrong on the farm. (Orwell, 2004, ch. 5). There are several similarities between the founding principles of Animal Farm and the events of today. The story could have been told using contemporary figures as discussed. History is again proved to repeat itself as least in a general way. The lessons of Animal Farm as are the lessons of history seldom learned. References Etzioni, Amitai. (2004). “How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act?” Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York, Routledge. Orwell, George. (2004). “Animal Farm” New York: Signet Classics. Read More