Animal Farm and Stalin’s Russian Sty

Article by Rosie Rogers. Edited by Tom Hercock. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.

Published in 1945, and ranked 31st on the Times’ list of ‘100 Best Novels’ George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ is still considered to be a highly influential novella. Branching out from the plot slightly to focus on wider implications, this article will consider the ideology behind revolutionary stories, of fantasy and fiction and examine the impact that such novels have had on society. By using Animal Farm as an example, more complex questions on such fictions should spring into being.

Animal Farm depicts the revolution and takeover of Manor Farm by an elite of pigs, headed by front pig Napoleon and side pig Snowball. After the death of the grand pig Old Major, Napoleon and Snowball set out to continue the philosophy of Animalism that Old Major was so content on creating. Seven commandments are created, one of which stating ‘All pigs are equal’.

As time progresses, Napoleon embarks on a downward slope of indoctrination. He re-writes the history of the Barn and the Seven Commandments to his advantage, subordinating Snowball and suggesting for example, that ‘All pigs are equal... But some are more equal than others’. Eventually, after complete control has been accomplished and the pig dictatorship is in full swing, Napoleon is satisfied; as a metaphor of a greedy human he is complete.

There is no doubt that there are many uncanny similarities between the ‘dystopian allegory’ and Stalin’s Russia. The story depicts Stalin’s take over in itself as revolutionary due to (in Orwell’s opinion) the stark difference between Lenin and Stalin and the far from Communist policies that followed.

Old Major and Napoleon are of course analogies of Lenin and Stalin and Snowball represents Trotsky. Napoleon and his army of closer animals (thought to be Stalin’s secret police) drive Snowball away, hinting he is a Judas to the rest of the farm; a sequence of events not dissimilar to the parting of ways between Stalin and Trotsky themselves.

The Hens similarly, are a fictional representation of the Kulaks who destroyed their stock rather than handing them over during Stalin’s Collectivisation Policy. In line with the economic reforms, despite the animals working all hours yet not receiving as much food as the greedy Napoleon, their allegiance to him never wavered. Psychological conditioning led them to believe that they were better off than when they were ruled by the previous farmer; a delusion that many in Russia also suffered. Collectivisation ensured drastic social changes on a scale rarely seen since the 1861 serfdom fiasco. It meant a drastic drop in living standards and the forced control of the land and its produce. Forty-eight hour weeks were common, conditions for the workers were exceedingly harsh and industrial discipline was as equally severe.

This article is not just a narrative however. Neither is it solely a means of highlighting similarities between Animal Farm and the Soviet Union. But it does, I would like to think, draw on the wider discourse surrounding fiction and fact. By examining Animal Farm and its relation to Stalin’s failed revolution as an example, I hope on a broader scale to consider the origin of the revolutionary novel in itself.

In particular, behind every novel about revolution is there a great amount of fact? Is there even such a thing as a fictional revolution or will they always be similar in one way or another to real historical events and scenarios? If so, this would clearly suggest the impact of historical revolutions on literature and popular culture. What however, would this suggest for vice versa?

The fable might appear to be a children’s book, with an illustrated cover on some editions and many of us first read it at school. Does this play any part in trivialising the topic of revolution and more specifically, the Soviet Union itself? It would certainly be less offensive to some if the predominant cast were not pigs. Stalin the swine. Orwell was after all a journalist; provoking reaction may have been his first and foremost aim. By playing down revolutions to that of constructed animals, shaded in pink, no different to an image in child’s colouring book, was Orwell just trying to create controversy? The book took a long while to be printed and Orwell was shunned by even the most popular publishers who some of which had consulted with the Ministry of Information when making their decision. It was believed such a tale could jeopardize the alliance between the UK, USA and the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, from examining Animal Farm and presuming a similar form to make up other revolutionary novels, it is also possible to see the dangers of fictional revolts in blowing historical events out of proportion and creating the novel version of a moral panic, normally associated with the media.

By creating links between Manor Farm and Russia, it shows a revolution gone wrong, making the Soviet Union out to be a far from Utopian world and highly criticising all those who chose to believe in the system. Such a fiction thus idealizes revolution into being the sole creator of Utopia and, since in this case Russia failed in the long term, also suggests that such Utopia is an unattainable social construction. While the novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw of revolution (as well as the cause), it also shows how ignorance and indifference to problems could equally allow horrors to happen to anyone.

The idea Orwell’s Animal Farm put preconditioned ideas into people’s heads, is enveloped in this idea of panic. In the novel he mentions the mental instability of Napoleon, but it was only in Stalin’s later life that his obsessive behaviour kicked into full swing. Similarly when studying Stalin’s dictatorship, the harvests of ‘46 and ‘52 always seem to play a prominent part, being thought to have produced only 40% of the crop of 1913; it was almost as if Orwell himself had predicted the downturn of the economy. Or, looking at it from another angle, did Orwell merely plant the seed in our heads, so that now we see such crop reductions in these particular years as having a great impact, where as if Orwell’s novel had not been printed, would we still have the same ideas and perceptions? Perhaps this shows how distorting and unpredictable novels of revolution can be.

As has hopefully been made clear, the implications and arguments surrounding revolutionary fictions are endless, certainly having the ability to stretch far beyond the extent of this article anyway. Not wanting to get ourselves into a moral panic and thus fear revolutions, maybe revolutionary fictions should just be treated as pretence and nothing more.If similarities to fact can be seen we should keep them to ourselves to muse over, as we sit in our armchairs smoking our pipes; for highlighting them just provokes too much controversy, confuses many and nags us with questions that are just too difficult to be answered. Besides, it also just means people like me have to write articles like this.

*****

“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?”

Squealer, right hand pig to Napoleon and propaganda minister, often likened to Vyacheslav Molotov.

“Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones’s day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas.”

Squealer’s propaganda mirrors Soviet propaganda, attempting to prove pre Revolutionary life was wrought with hardship.

“They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.”

The brutal activities of the dogs on the farm have been compared with the purges and show trials under Stalin in the late 1930s.

← Back to Volume 2

← Back to Issue 2