The worker in his human functions no longer feels himself to be anything but animal.  What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.
Karl Marx
 

George Orwell, a socialist, became deeply troubled when he saw Russia turn into a totalitarian state after the 1917 revolution.  His distress inspired many of his writings, including Animal Farm.  In one of his essays, Orwell wrote:
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism? Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. (Orwell and Angus 1:4)

 Thus, in Animal Farm, Orwell not only responded to what happened in Russia under Stalin, but he also drew attention to a parallel totalitarian state in Germany under Hitler and took aim at totalitarian tendencies within his own country, England (Lee 109). Orwell subtitled his work ?A Fairy Story,? probably hinting at the other, artistic purpose of his book while also satirizing what he wrote by casting it as an imaginary story.  As a fairy story, Animal Farm can be read on two levels:  1) It can be read as a story about animals which is why even children can read and enjoy Animal Farm; indeed in the first years after its publication, Animal Farm was most frequently found in children?s sections of libraries and book stories; and 2) It can be read as an allegory with a serious point to make; in the case of Animal Farm, the story shows symbolically what happens when one group controls or dominates another (Voorhees 58; Meyers 143; Leyburn 107).  Although Orwell had his reasons for subtitling this work a fairy story, Animal Farm is a beast fable satirizing Russia under Stalin as well as all totalitarian systems and lamenting the lack of true socialism in which all should be genuinely equal.  In contrast to a fairy story, in the beast fable animals often take on human qualities in order to satirize the ills of society. Through the use of animals, Animal Farm satirizes the many faceted ways that people act within a totalitarian society.

 George Orwell?s desire to write an imaginative piece of work as well as to convey his message about the ills of totalitarianism in Animal Farm naturally fit into the beast fable form.  Often seen as closer to criticism than to fiction in tone and in the balanced fairness of its judgments, a beast fable is remarkably similar to critical essays (Wain 201).  In Orwell?s other works, such as 1984, he conveyed his message through a tragic figure, or an Orwellian character, who fought against the system and lost;  in Animal Farm, Orwell gained a detached point of view through the beast fable which allowed more intense criticism of social injustice and inequity than the Orwellian character could provide  (Williams 70).  Orwell?s idea of using animals and placing his novel in the context of the beast fable came from the following observation:
A little boy, perhaps 10 years old, was driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn.  It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat?.I proceeded to analyse Marx?s theory from the animals? point of view.  To them it was clear that the concept of class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them:  the true struggle is between animals and humans.  From this point of departure, it was not difficult to elaborate the story. (Orwell and Angus III:406)

 In the 128 pages of Animal Farm, a transformation experienced by the animals in the barn yard makes the farm into a new animal society that closely resembles Stalin?s Russia. The two classes of animals are the ruling pigs, or Bolsheviks otherwise known as members of the Communist Party, and the working pigs, or the proletariat.  While the humans in Animal Farm predominantly represent capitalists, some of the humans also represent the aristocrats of pre-revolution Russia and still others represent Germany under Hitler.

 No matter what ruling class they represent,  the humans in both Animal Farm and in communism exploit the classes under them.  The worst thing about the Bolshevik pigs in this story is that they became indistinguishable from the drunken, greedy and cruel men who initially were their abusers and their enemy (Williams 72-73).  At the end of the book, Mr. Pilkington, a neighboring farmer, said, ?If  you have your lower animals to contend with, we have our lower classes? (Orwell 107). This shows a residue of thinking of the poor as powerful, but stupid, animals. At this point, even the animals on the farm cannot distinguish the pigs from the humans.  Indeed, the book ends with the sentence: ?The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but it was impossible to say which was which? (Orwell 128).  The parallels that Orwell wanted to draw between the exploited and laboring poor and the exploited and laboring animals carried through to the end.  The old ruling class, whether it is humans or capitalists, and the new ruling class, the revolutionaries, whatever their differences and conflicts, can be depended upon to go on exploiting the creatures through whose labors they live, and, even, as at the end of Animal Farm, unite against them. Real socialism, like real animalism, is yet to happen in a society. Thus, in Orwell?s portrayal of revolution in Animal Farm, it seemed that authentic animalism, like authentic socialism, was just a distant promise.  In fact, in his preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm, Orwell wrote:
Nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.  And for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.  On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. (Orwell and Angus III:404)

Totalitarianism has happened so frequently in communist countries that ?communistic totalism? now describes such states (Williams 72-73; Pozner xvii-xviii). This concept seems to be reflected in the one tenet that remains at Animal Farm, ?All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal? (Orwell 123).

  In its purest form socialism, like animalism in Animal Farm, implies a working class revolution followed by collective ownership.  A temporary, benevolent dictatorship needs to be established but would automatically dissolve as the new system took root (Sowell 156).  However, animalism as set forth in Animal Farm, like communism (at this point in history used synonymously with socialism) as set forth in The Communist Manifesto, provides no direction about what to do with those who would exploit the system by turning a temporary benevolent dictatorship into a despotic totalitarian state.  In Animal Farm, the Bolshevik (communist party) pigs demonstrate vividly how  a temporary ?dictatorship? quickly turns into a totalitarian state instead of a means to establish true animalism (Wain 146; Pozner xvii).   Unlike the farm under Mr. Jones in which the farm animals know he is ?the enemy,? the animals believe that the pigs have their good in mind and willingly sacrifice for what they think is the vision of animalism.  The misfortune is, of course, that the pigs are no better than Mr. Jones; in some ways they are worse in that they exploit the trust the other animals place in them and use that trust to their own gain, exercising absolute authority over the farm.  Most of the animals of the farm feel helpless and find comfort in the leadership of the pigs and the tenets of animalism.  No matter how much the writing on the wall literally changes,  the animals think that whatever is written on that wall reflects true animalism; they trust the pigs unconditionally and do not question their actions.  Satisfying their hunger for power and material gain, the despotic pigs enjoy a life of luxury and unchallenged control.
 

 Although the pigs' path seems different from that suggested by Old Major, the prize Middle White Boar,  in reality Old Major paves the way for a totalitarian system to exist.  Shortly before his death Old Major calls all of the animals together.  Mr. Jones, who has fallen into a habit of drunkenness, has gone to sleep again in a drunken stupor without discharging all of his duties.  Given the animals? restlessness, caused by Mr. Jones' negligence, and Old Major's esteemed position on the farm, they gladly lose sleep to hear Old Major speak.  Speaking from a raised platform, Old Major holds the attention of his late night audience by first mentioning the "strange dream" that the animals assemble to hear and then delays an account of it until after he lectures his sleepy listeners into a state of suggestibility (Smyer 116).   In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the breaking of the will of the audience by the superior strength of the speaker as the essential factor to propaganda.  He also stated that the physical tiredness of his audience is a most welcome condition for their suggestibility, suggesting that meetings be held in the evening when the will of the audience will succumb more easily to the dominating force of a stronger will (710).  Old Major indeed has propaganda to offer; he proposes a new system called animalism, and because of his style, he is able to sell it effectively to the other animals, including those who cannot understand what he has to say.  Old Major's speech, which talks about working toward a revolution and overthrowing the ruling class (man), is an accurate exposition of orthodox Marxism and closely resembles the last paragraph of The Communist Manifesto:
They [the Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.  Let the ruling classes tremble at the Communistic revolution.  The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.  They have a world to win.  WORKINGMEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! (Marx and Engles 57-58)

A charismatic leader, Old Major arouses loyalty and enthusiasm among the other animals; he seems bigger than life and able to exhibit extraordinary powers, thus easily paving the way for the future totalitarian society. (Tobias and Lalich 67).

 While the animals listen to Old Major's prophecy of a happier future without humanity's cruel presence, they are held spellbound.  However, what unites the animals together in a collective state of "wild excitement" is the song "Beasts of England" which Old Major claims suddenly returned to recent memory.  When in a state of suggestibility and high excitement, singing like this can create feelings of euphoria in participants; these feelings are used as tools in the hands of despotic leaders.  Like addiction to a drug, adherents find themselves wanting to re-experience that euphoria, even ignoring warning signs in order to do so.  Therefore, it is not a belief system that holds them, but as Hitler states in Mein Kampf, meetings such as these allow an individual to:

receive for the first time the pictures of a greater community, something that has a strengthening and encouraging effect...[and] is surrounded by [others]...with the same conviction...he himself succumbs to the magic influence of what we call mass suggestion.  (715, 716)
 

 This euphoric state also ties into the feelings that they, the animals, have been called to a higher purpose to be obtained by unity and self sacrifice; both of these qualities are breeding grounds for totalitarianism.  The animals in Animal Farm feel they are set apart from other animals because of the high purpose they have; therefore, they are able to tolerate the intolerable life they live after the rebellion. Eric Hoffer in his book True Believer described it this way:

The vigor of a mass movement stems from the propensity of its followers for united action and self-sacrifice.  When we ascribe the success of a movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda, leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but referring to instruments of unification and to means used to inculcate a readiness for self-sacrifice.  (58)

Because the initial euphoric state, combined with a high sense of purpose, continues to motivate the animals, a totalitarian system easily takes hold among them.  As time goes on a slogan ?Four legs good; two legs bad? keeps the animals from thinking much about what is happening to animalism while the singing still anesthetizes them; the party lines and slogans of communism serve much the same purpose. When the official song becomes "Animal Farm," instead of ?Beasts of England,? a crucial change occurs; instead of comradeship based on a collective longing for a freer existence, there is a government enforced enthusiasm for a utopia officially proclaimed as now achieved (Orwell and Angus III:450-451).  This is something that probably even Old Major could not foresee.

 From the very beginning the pigs ignore Old Major?s warning not to resemble man by both learning to read themselves and then teaching others to read.  However, despite his lofty words about not resembling man, it is Old Major who actually sets the stage for Animal Farm to embody a double society.  On the surface it appears to be society that celebrates communal values, but in reality it naturally allows an elite group's or a dominant individual's extremely self-regarding behavior to be displayed.  Animal Farm is a stage in which the pigs seize power not only because of their intelligence but because of their flair for the dramatic.  Thus, the pigs are drawn to the stage and its tricks because through it they can control the other animals and enjoy self gain  (Smyer 116).

 Through the two most important animals in Animal Farm, Napoleon and Snowball, Orwell described the most dominant characteristics of their historical models: Napoleon represents Joseph Stalin and Snowball represents Leon Trotsky as well as suggesting characteristics of other famous dictators.  Orwell compared Napoleon Bonaparte to Stalin by using Napoleon as the dictator pig?s name.  Both Napoleon Bonaparte and Stalin turned revolutions into dictatorships; both transformed revolutions that were supposed to be from those below (the ruled) into ones that were from those above (the new ruling class), with the new ruling class reaping the benefits while the ruled remained oppressed; and finally, both dictators ruled ruthlessly.  Stalin was quoted as saying, ?To choose one?s victim, to prepare one?s plans minutely, to slake an implacable vengeance, and then to go to bed...there is nothing sweeter in the world? (Tucker and Cohen xviii). Through saying this, Stalin showed how blood thirsty he was for power.  Napoleon the pig also carefully plotted to overthrow Snowball.  He routinely purged the farm of ?rebellious? animals not caring how much blood he shed.  It was not enough to just have their obedience.  Rather he desired that their very souls be sacrificed to him; he wanted ?willing? victims.  He drew his power from the compliance he could extract from the other animals, and in his mind he was giving the animals what both they and he wanted.
Like Orwell?s Napoleon, Hitler spoke of what he perceived to be the satisfaction the masses have in domination; however, in the process, he also revealed his own murderous desire for total control:

 Like a woman. . .who will submit to the strong man rather than dominate the weakling, thus the masses love the ruler rather than the suppliant, and inwardly they are far more satisfied by a doctrine which tolerates no rival than by the grant of liberal freedom; they often feel at a loss what to do with it, and even easily feel themselves deserted.  They neither realize the impudence with which they are spiritually terrorized, nor the outrageous curtailment of their human liberties for in no way does the delusion of this doctrine dawn on them. (Hitler 56)

Hitler?s statement can be seen in how the animals accept what Napoleon has to say; in fact, they don?t even question how the commandments written on the wall have changed.  They actively participate in the purges by putting themselves forward and confessing to crimes that, for the most part, they didn?t commit.  Napoleon keeps his hold on the animals by exploiting their natural tendencies toward feeling guilt and shame.  Through the public confessions and subsequent purges, Napoleon grabs control of the inner lives of even the animals who have not confessed. Thus they seem to have little choice but to submit because of the totalitarian bind in which they find themselves; the repeat performances of public display and humiliation usurps inner experience (Lifton 425-426).

 Snowball does not seem as if he wants to put the animals in such binds.  The name Snowball itself reflects that Leon Trotsky had white hair and a beard, and like snow, he melted before Stalin?s opposition.  Like Trotsky and unlike Napoleon, Snowball does seem to have some genuine concern for the other animals as is evidenced by the plans he makes and the way he speaks to them.  Although not always understood by the animals, he is a brilliant speaker and more vivacious and inventive than Napoleon; he is also a greater writer.  Trotsky was known for his vitality and ability as well as the sheer volume of activities in which he got involved (Meyers 137). Orwell?s description of Snowball activities, though a comic parody, is close to reality:
Snowball also busied himself with organising the other animals into what he called Animal Committees...He formed the Egg Production Committee for the hens, the Clean Tails League for the cows, the Wild Comrades Re-education Committee...and various others, besides instituting classes in reading and writing.  (39)

Snowball studies military history, organizes, commands and leads the Army to victory in the Battle of the Cowshed where foreign powers help Mr. Jones and invade the farm (Russia).
 After the war Snowball is full of plans for innovations and improvements, but he never sees them through to fruition.  Two of the most important battles, one involving the economy and the other involving ideology, between Trotsky and Stalin are allegorized in Animal Farm.  Snowball?s vision for the farm is of fantastic machines which would do their work for them; they could graze in the fields and only need to work three days a week.  This is reflective of how Trotsky fought for the priority of manufacturing over agriculture and for accelerated industrialization.  Stalin, on the other hand, wanted comprehensive and drastic collectivization. Napoleon argued that they needed to increase food production; if they wasted time on the windmill, they would starve to death.  Ironically, after he drives Snowball off the farm, Napoleon incorporates Snowball?s plan by still building the windmill while emphasizing food production; Stalin also incorporated Trotsky?s ideas into his five-year plan.  The other conflict between Trotsky and Stalin that Orwell satirized was Trotsky?s idea of ?Permanent Revolution? versus Stalin?s theory of ?Socialism in one country.?  Orwell presents this controversy in simple but accurate words:

 According to Napoleon, what the animals must do was to procure firearms and train themselves in the use of them.  According to Snowball, they must send out more and more pigeons and stir up rebellion among the animals on the other farms.  The one argued that if they could not defend themselves, they were bound to be conquered, the other argued that if rebellion happened everywhere they would have no need to defend themselves.  (54-56)

 When Snowball comes to crucial points in his speeches the sheep, who serve as echoes for the pigs, are especially liable to break into bleating ?Four legs good, two legs bad,? just as in the party Congress in 1927, at Stalin?s instigation ?pleas for the opposition were drowned in the continual, hysterically intolerant uproar from the floor? (Meyers 138).  The Trotsky-Stalin conflict reached the height of its tension in 1927 after Britain broke diplomatic relations with Russia and ruined Stalin?s hopes for an agreement between both the Soviet and British trade unions; the Russian ambassador to Poland was assassinated; and Chiang Kai-shek massacred the Chinese Communists who had joined him at Stalin?s orders.  Trotsky and the Opposition issued a declaration attacking Stalin for these political and military failures, but before they could bring this issue before the party Congress and remove Stalin from power, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Party (Meyer 139).  Orwell writes of the final defeat of Trotsky, ?By the time he [Snowball] had finished speaking, there was no doubt as to the way the vote would go...but just at this moment Napoleon?s dogs [the GUP, or Secret Police] attacked Snowball and forced him to flee the farm and go into exile? (56, 57).

The dogs, instruments of the totalitarian society,  terrorize the other animals.  Napoleon takes a litter of puppies away from their mother soon after they are born and trains them himself.  This reflects Communism?s belief that the influence of the state in educating children should be greater than the influence of the family (Marx and Engles 38).  The dogs carry out the executions ordered by Napoleon.  They graphically show how the pigs put their elite society, which includes the dogs, over the well-being of the other animals.  Except for Boxer who has extraordinary strength and Snowball who escapes, the dogs successfully dispense of any animal.  The pigs decide who has the right to exist, and the acts of the dogs show the animals that they are expendable (Lifton 433-434).
   While Napoleon holds the animals captive because of their fear of the dogs; he still has their trust because of Squealer.  Squealer is a master propagandist, much like the Pravda which was the propaganda arm of the Communist Party in Russia or Joseph Goebbels in Germany.  Squealer has his own self-interests vested in the protection of Napoleon; thus, protecting Napoleon is protecting himself.  If Squealer told the truth about what is really happening with Napoleon and the other pigs at Animal Farm, the other animals could see things as they really are and likely oust the pigs. The truth threatens the absolute power that the pigs hold; therefore, Squealer needs to protect the privileged status of the pigs while making it look like they are interested in the welfare of all the animals.  The animals cannot discern Squealer?s motives for rationalizing.  They take what he says as coming from a comrade who would not lie to them.  Squealer takes advantage of that trust.  His propaganda rationalizes the pigs? actions and alters reality in the process; Squealer does this to confirm and protect the superiority that the pigs feel about themselves while at the same time using propaganda to harmonize the pigs? ways with life as it really is for the other animals. (Fromm 168).  Squealer shows his craftiness in using propaganda by the way he handles Boxer?s death. A man with a van labeled ?horse slaughterer? takes Boxer away for the obvious purpose of slaughtering him and probably boiling him down to made animal food.  Old Major predicted such an end would come to Boxer at the hands of humans; ironically in the end it is from pigs that he suffers this fate.  Squealer convincingly tells the animals that the veterinarian had not yet painted the van and goes on to tell of glorious details about Boxer?s supposed last days.  Although Napoleon joins in and urges the animals to adopt Boxer?s mottos of ?I will work harder,? and ?Napoleon is always right, ? it is Squealer who does the convincing.

 Boxer, named after the Chinese revolutionaries who drove out foreign exploiters and were themselves crushed, is central to the theme of Animal Farm.  Orwell believed that horses belonged to the vanished agricultural past of England; through Boxer Orwell indicated his belief about the importance of the link between nature and the past in the lives of individuals as well as in the English society in general (Smyer 35).  While Boxer, who is representative of the proletariat, works extremely hard and obeys the rules, he cannot be used for propaganda purposes as he doesn?t understand what is going on.  The pigs feel that he commands too much respect among the other animals and are threatened by him.  Unlike them (the pigs), he is pure of heart and does what they should really be doing.  Napoleon sends the dogs to kill him.   However, being the strongest animal on the farm, Boxer keeps the dogs at bay.  Yet, even then, instead of realizing what is being done to him, he looks to Napoleon for direction about what to do with the dogs in his hold.  Like the proletariat in Communist Russia, Boxer does not know how much power is in his strength (Poretsky).

Clover, the other horse on the farm, is a maternal figure in whom the other animals find comfort.  Even after the destruction of the windmill and subsequent execution of some of the animals, other animals turn to Clover, almost by instinct; in her presence they are able to think of memories of the farm as a happier place.  However, under the new society of Animal Farm, her powers are both limited and declining, signifying an England (as well as a Russia) in danger of losing touch with a maternally nourishing past (Smyer 64-65).

 Unlike the reassuring presence of Clover or the loyalty of strong, but unintelligent, Boxer, Benjamin the donkey is intelligent but whose loyalty is confined to doing his job and no more.  If he did not feel such great fondness for Boxer, he would be downright cynical.  Only Boxer can move Benjamin to step out of character. He sees Boxer in the horse slaughterer?s van and then stirs up the other animals to act.  Benjamin sees what is going on at Animal Farm; however, either because of feeling helpless or a sense of aloofness he does nothing to change matters and is careful to just stay out of harm?s way.  In the beginning of the 1917 revolution the people in Russia, like the sheep on Animal Farm, echoed the rhetoric of the Communist Party; after the revolution most of them were loyal like Boxer; however, as time went on they became more and more like Benjamin cynically knowing what was going on but keeping their mouths shut in order to keep out of harm?s way (Poretsky).

 Benjamin?s aloofness emphasizes how, except for a brief period after the revolution, the proletariat or working animals of the farm experience constant alienation from those who ruled them.  Despite all of their hopes they  begin and end at the same place.  Although animalism starts out as a blueprint for an ideal society, the equality that the animals initially experience after the revolution erodes until finally all of the animals are far from being equal.  The animals never had experienced lives of true dignity and equality without alienation before the revolution, and they do not experience this after the revolution.  Thus, having no gauge to determine what is normal and what is abusive, they only have a dull sense that something went awry.  Like following a carrot on a string, they are led on by a hope of an ideal society, only to find that society to be totalitarian.  They obediently follow, hoping, until slowly they accept the inevitable and increasingly become like Benjamin.  This does not say much about the hopes Orwell had for a true socialistic society to exist. No wonder he wrote 1984 after this book.

 LIST OF WORKS CITED:
Fromm, Erich. The Fear of Freedom. 1942. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1960.
Hitler, Adolf.  Mein Kampf.  London:  Hurst and Blackett, 1939.
Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer. 1951. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 1989.
Lee, Robert A. Orwell?s Fiction.  Notre Dame:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Lifton, Robert J. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. 1961.  Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989
Marx, Karl, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.  New York:  Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engles. The Communist Manifesto. 1888. New York:  Bantam Books, 1992.
Meyers, Jeffrey. A Reader?s Guide to George Orwell. Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1984.
Orwell, George.  Animal Farm. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc., 1946.
Orwell, Sonya and Ian Angus, eds.  The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of  George Orwell, Volumes I and III.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. 4 vols.
Poretsky, Leonid. Former USSR citizen. Personal Interview.  9 April 1999.
Pozner, Vladimir.  Introduction. The Communist Manifesto. By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.  1888.  New York:  Bantam Books, 1992.
Sowell, Thomas.  Marxism: Philosophy and Economics.  New York: William Morrow & Co., 1985
Smyer, Richard, Animal Farm: Pastoralism and Politics.  Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988.
Tobias, Madeleine and Janja Lalich. Captive Hearts, Captive Minds.  Alemeda, CA:  Hunter House Inc., Publishers, 1994.
Tucker, Robert and Stephen Cohen, eds. The Great Purge Trials. New York, 1965.
Voorhees, Richard Joseph.  The Paradox of George Orwell.  Purdue University Studies, 1971.
Wain, John.  Essays on Literature and Ideas.  London: Longman Ltd., 1963.
Williams, Raymond.  GEORGE ORWELL.  New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.