To say that that Napoleon’s betrayal of the revolution in Orwell’s Animal Farm was inevitable would be unequivocally wrong, as it would pardon all of his tyranny. With this stated, however, it would be equally as wrong to suggest things would have been different if someone else had triumphed in the succession struggle. Simply stated, animalism is intrinsically flawed and leads to an environment in which tyrants such as Napoleon can more easily manipulate people. Napoleon’s betrayal is therefore the most likely outcome to animalism’s post-revolutionary period.
Orwell was a socialist and, consequently, his intentions in Animal Farm could not have been to attack all of socialism, but to warn of the dangers of totalitarianism and more specifically Stalinism. Animal Farm and Napoleon’s rise is a tale of “reader beware”for later generations. Orwell would not have allowed Napoleon to be innocent in creating the horrible farm he did.
Things were not immediately horrible after the animalism revolution; the narrator says, “The animals were happy as they had never conceived it possible to be (p. 31),” and, “Nobody stole, nobody grumbled over his rations (p. 32).” Even the very first harvest was more successful than it had ever been: it was larger, took less time than it had ever with Mr. Jones, and no crops were wasted. Most of the animals worked just as hard if not harder than before. All of this combined could lead one to believe animalism is successful and sustainable. It may be, but, as Orwell shows us, the likelihood for corruption is great.
While this corruption by Napoleon had not yet occurred before and right after the Revolution, this time is most important in examining the cause of Napoleon’s totalitarianism. Orwell describes Boxer and Clover as being the most faithful to animalism , but immediately afterwards says “These two had great difficulty in thinking anything out for themselves,” leading the reader to believe that the first animalism supporters were mindless drones.
Additionally, Mollie’s constant reluctance to embrace animalism’s freedom is analagous to the Czarist during the Russian Revolution and demonstrates that the Animals were not ready for a socialist government. And finally, when all the animals invaded Mr. Jones’ house, they were all in awe, gleefully looking at the luxuries. animalism calls for equality and the banishment of human luxuries that all the animals seemed to desire. It is easy to see then how this society could not support an ideology they seemingly did not truly believe or understand.
Adding to the comprehension problem, animalism is ambiguous and naive. It allows for the very problems it warns against. Old Major says in his speech “Man is the only real enemy we have.” This statement is much too one-minded; it allows for the immunity of all criminals outside of man. While creating brotherhood, it creates potential unwarranted trust in a comrade as the story exemplifies and as Soviet history demonstrates through the once wrongly popular Bolsheviks. Similarly, in the commandments of animalism adopted from Old Major’s dream speech, it states, “All animals are created equal.”
This should be far more detailed. As it reads now, it does not take into account the individual differences in everyone; for instance, the pigs are plainly stated to be the most intelligent animals on the farm, while the horses are said to be the dumbest. Napoleon later asserts that some animals are created “more equal,” clarifying the ambiguity in his totalitarian way. Major also states that “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing.” While being a valid argument against the bourgeoisie, it fails to give a solution for the many problems that would arise with no leaders in a business economy. After therevolution, the animals still don’t have a solution and “naturally,” as it is said, the pigs assume managerial positions.
The assuming of managerial positions was just one step in the conversion to totalitarianism under a different name. The pigs wanted power all along: they learned how to read and write before everyone else; they knew they would be the leaders so, as Orwell writes, “It was always the pigs who put forward the revolution (p. 34);” And it was always the pigs not contributing their share of manual labor from the start.
Had things been different in the story of Animal Farm and had Snowball or Squealer triumphed in the succession struggle, the betrayal of the principles of the Revolution and of animalism would have probably still occurred. Snowball’s ideology called for the violent Revolution; it is difficult to imagine the Utopian animalism Old Major imagined coming from such a negative and hate-breeding operation. Squealer’s ideology is even worse, being one of the first pigs to openly violate the equality tenant of Animalism: he made a speech lying to the other animals, claiming that it was scientifically proven that pigs needed milk and apples and that if it were not for the pigs’ leadership, Mr. Jones would come back.
In retrospect, had animalism occurred in a more sacrificing society, had it occurred in one where animal’s intellectual levels were closer to equal, and had its principles been more thoroughly thought out, it may have been a successful ideology and government. Animal Farm is a satirical version of Stalin’s Soviet Union and it serves to emphasize the dangers in communism or animalism and the evils of men or pigs. Therefore, it is animalism, Napoleon, and the animals themselves to blame for the tyrannical pig government formed at the end.
