The 75th Anniversary of Animal Farm

To coincide with the 75th Anniversary of Animal Farm, the Academy of Ideas hosted a bookclub discussion on George Orwell's novella. This was the introduction on Thursday 16th April 2020

Animal Farm

Animal Farm was first published in August 1945 and is probably George Orwell’s second most famous published work after 1984. The original full title was Animal Farm: A Fairy Story. Famously, of course, Animal Farm is an allegorical novella. It tells the story of a group of farm animals who rebel against their human farmer. They are hoping to create a society where the animals can be equal, free and prosperous. Ultimately, however, the rebellion is betrayed under the dictatorship of a pig named Napoleon. Consequently, the animals ending up in a farm-state as bad as it was before. There was no big secret here. For Orwell, the fable reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then onto the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s.

Although both Animal Farm and 1984 are reflections and satires of Stalinism and totalitarianism, both books have been used as warning bells on the nature of power itself. For this reason, they do not date as a period piece of documenting the destructive impact of Stalinism. They raise questions on the nature of power, how to gain consent and the problems of legal constitutionalism as well. Although 1984 has often been used outside of the contextual framework of Stalinism, I think this is less so with Animal Farm. And this is what I want to look at this evening. I want to examine some of the key themes that Orwell was writing about in Animal Farm and what insights it can bring to a 21st century context.On social media, some journalists nickname Owen Jones Squealer, after the mediating pig in Animal Farm, who explains to the party faithful the latest twist, turn and revision of the party’s policies. So clearly, there’s scope for referencing Animal Farm in a fresh context!

Then and now, Animal Farm criticises the claim that social inequalities are a product of natural inequalities, how the division of labour on the farm is organised. It speaks to us of how the work the animals do is similar to humans working like animals under capitalism. The rats in Animal Farm I tend to see as analogous to the lumpen proletariat, marginal to the production process but parasitical on the labour of others.

On mapping out a future society for the animals, Orwell is also caricaturing the hairshirt tendencies of left wing radicals and their opposition to consumerism or luxury goods. The products of an advanced society in Animal Farm are cast as ‘evil’ rather than a positive development for all. The caricature of the Bolshevik party is well known here too. Orwell narrates the development of political theory and organisation amongst the animals on Manor Farm, with Napoleon and Snowball the vanguard leaders. Equally the decadent farmer Mr Jones is analogous to a corrupt and decadent bourgeoisie in Russia and also the bourgeoisie prior to the French revolution as well. Immediately after the revolution on Manor Farm, the pigs establish seven commandments of Animalism or a written constitution and thus possesses legal power.

Throughout the novella, the constitution is constantly amended or re-interpreted to suit the power objectives of Napoleon and Snowball. I think here, Orwell speaks to the limitations of Constitutionalism that applies outside of his satire of the Soviet Union. In fact, this more accurately reflects how the American Constitution has chopped and changed to meet the requirements of the US establishment at any given time - from legally justifying slavery to legalising gay marriage on a federal level. Rather than a written constitution protecting the rights of individuals, Orwell is arguing that only the powerful have the capacity to amend written constitutions and this is done to enhance the power of a political class. It is not in place to automatically protect natural rights. In this way, Animal Farm speaks to us on the dangers of Constitutionalism and how legal principles are used to undermine politics.

Orwell makes great play of how expertise and intelligence become synonymous with leadership and a born-to-rule attitude, rather than something that is an outcome of an elected mandate. Animal Farm speaks to us on how technical expertise is used as a mechanism to justify leadership without accountability, a constant feature of the workings on Animal Farm. Interestingly, Orwell writes that it was ‘natural’ that the pigs should assume the leadership. For all the shift from the hereditary principle and monarchism in western societies, Orwell is hinting that technocratic qualities make leadership a natural outcome, but not one from an elected mandate.

In the early period of the animal revolution, we learn that the animals held weekly planning meetings for the seven days ahead (although it’s only the pigs who put forward the actual resolutions). A period of self-improvement of the animals is also in evidence during the early stages of the revolution. Nevertheless, we watch how the animals descend into groupthink, summed up in the phrase "4 legs good 2 legs bad". This is a conforming slogan that has the effect of undermining new ideas and opinions. It’s no coincidence that the pigs start to set aside themselves apart from the other animals via the language of paternalism and risk assessment of the other animals. It's a language that is all too familiar in the 21st century.

The Animal Farm revolution effectively ends its early promise when Napoleon announces, once Snowball has been banished, that the weekly meetings would come to an end. Instead, decision making on the farm is done in private amongst an unelected pig leadership. Many of the Left today utter the words democracy with almost sneering inverted commas, a concept from a by gone age that has become a bit of a joke. As Orwell outlines here, the revolution is betrayed once democratic decision making is removed from the masses and when leadership is not accountable to the mass of society. Any claims for a progressive and radical society, Orwell is saying, is effectively over once democracy is removed from social organisation.

As Napoleon consolidates his rule, he become more interested in discussing trade and politics with the human leaders of nearby farms. The pig leadership completely isolates themselves from the populace on Animal Farm, allowing rulers from other farms to have a say over what impacts on them. The description of the Pigs enjoying being at the table with other human farmers demonstrate how they get their validation from other members of the farming elite, rather than the animals in their own jurisdiction. Although Animal Farm is obviously allegorical to Stalin’s cavorting with Western leaders, the novella also applies to political processes that end up preferring the company of other elites than the mass of citizens at home.

However, I’d be interested on what people think about the depiction of the dumb animals blindly following the pigs orders, those animals incapable of making decisions for themselves or not having the ability to question authority. We’re used to that awful hybrid word of sheeple, is Orwell casting similar aspersions to the lower orders in Animal Farm? Is he revealing his own upper class prejudices against the uneducated throng, incapable of challenging the way society is organised? Or is he spelling out the dangers of Stalinist bureaucracy and Stalinist groupthink when it comes to political processes?

Overall, then, Animal Farm is about the importance of power and how democracy and accountability are antidotes to the corruption of power. It examines the perils when radicals jettison democratic mandates, whether in a highly fraught revolutionary context or in the current context of 21st century Europe.