What went wrong in Animal Farm?

[gunner154]

(hoping Edric O will reply to this)

Have you read Animal Farm? I hope you did, I want to know something. How could a true Communist state be established in Animal Farm without becoming Stalinist like in turned out to be eventually?

[Andrew]

Maybe if the pigs did not become evil. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

the pigs secretly stole the canine pups and raised them as a secret police force.  If it was not for the canine police force the pigs would never had gained power.  They are the ones that carried out the executions in the story.

[Marcel71]

I did not read the book, but i can have a clear picture from above reactions.

True Communism can't excist if not EVERYBODY is accepting with it (Youko, read the word ACCEPTING ;)).

And that is why Communism just will NEVER exist (at least not for a thousend years). Socialisme is the best we can do at the moment i think, Unfortunattely McDonalds, GE, MicroSoft and other globalist have so much influence everywhere that also they want to disturb with their 'free markets'.

They mean free markets for them and everybody else has to get 'destroyed'.

I would go for Communism if it could exist. But unfortunattely

[gunner154]

True Communism can't excist if not EVERYBODY is accepting with it (Youko, read the word ACCEPTING ;)).

And that is why Communism just will NEVER exist (at least not for a thousend years). Socialisme is the best we can do at the moment i think, Unfortunattely McDonalds, GE, MicroSoft and other globalist have so much influence everywhere that also they want to disturb with their 'free markets'.

They mean free markets for them and everybody else has to get 'destroyed'.

Para 1: Everybody must accept it? What about forcing the rich to give up a portion of their wealth? They don't accept it, but they still have to do it.

Para 2: What do you mean?

[Marcel71]

With para2 i mean that Certain people/company's would never 'allow' for countries to become Communistic. It would mean they can't sell their products anymore that expensive for example...

So they will do everything in their power to work against the building of a communistic regime..

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Para 1: Everybody must accept it? What about forcing the rich to give up a portion of their wealth?

then you get stalinism. forcing them to do this.

It is not fair at all, to make rich people who have rightfully earned their fortune to give it up. people who work more than others should have the opportunity to become rich. it greatly encourages more work.

[Dude_Doc]

It is not fair at all, to make rich people who have rightfully earned their fortune to give it up.

Being rich in these times also means having power. You could buy up hospitals, schools, homes and no one would have a say in it. You call this fair? 

people who work more than others should have the opportunity to become rich.

Billion times richer than his own workers? Most corporate owners don't work at all, some have even earned his/her father's property/money.

it greatly encourages more work.

Really?

[Edric O]

then you get stalinism. forcing them to do this.

Err, no. Capitalism itself was first established by forcing the feudal aristocrats to give up their monopoly over political power and ownership of land, and it didn't turn into anything like stalinism, did it? Likewise, when stalinism itself was overthrown just 15 years ago, and the stalinists were forced to give up their power and quite considerable personal fortunes, that didn't lead to a new form of stalinism, did it?

There is a right way and a wrong way to force the old ruling class to give up its wealth and power. You get stalinism only if you do it the wrong way.

It is not fair at all, to make rich people who have rightfully earned their fortune to give it up.

That would be true if they had actually rightfully earned it, of course. But they haven't. They've rightfully earned only a small part of their wealth through their own work, and obtained the rest by exploiting their workers.

people who work more than others should have the opportunity to become rich. it greatly encourages more work.

The opportunity to get rich by doing something encourages people to do that something. But the "something" does not necessarely have to be work. In capitalism, you don't get rich by working - you get rich by getting other people to work for you.

In addition, when we're talking about the opportunity to get rich, another question should also be asked: HOW rich? Capitalism allows people to get ridiculously rich, leading to concentrations of immense wealth in very few hands.

[Edric O]

True Communism can't excist if not EVERYBODY is accepting with it (Youko, read the word ACCEPTING ;)).

What makes you think that? There certainly isn't any reason why everyone would have to agree with a communist system in order for it to exist. It is only necessary for the majority of people to agree.

With para2 i mean that Certain people/company's would never 'allow' for countries to become Communistic. It would mean they can't sell their products anymore that expensive for example... So they will do everything in their power to work against the building of a communistic regime...

Of course that certain people (to be more exact, the rich and powerful - in other words, the "ruling class") would do everything they can to stop a socialist or communist system from being established anywhere, because such a system would be a threat to their wealth and power. And, in fact, the hardest part about establishing socialism or communism is defeating the ruling class.

[ordos45]

That would be true if they had actually rightfully earned it, of course. But they haven't. They've rightfully earned only a small part of their wealth through their own work, and obtained the rest by exploiting their workers.

My boss is worth, according to last estimates, $76 million.  He still works 8-12 hour shifts alongside his employees six or seven days a week.

Animal Farm...everyone seemed happy at first, equal even.  Then the pigs, as mentioned before, trained the pups as a Secret Police, and they allowed their greed to overwhelm them, just as humans do.  By the end it becomes a Stalinist Regime.

[Edric O]

My boss is worth, according to last estimates, $76 million.  He still works 8-12 hour shifts alongside his employees six or seven days a week.

...which proves my point. He works just as much as his employees. But are his employees worth $76 million each? I doubt it. The boss gets a lot (not just a bit - a hell of a lot) more money for the same amount of work.

[Edric O]

And now to answer the post that actually started this topic:

Have you read Animal Farm? I hope you did, I want to know something. How could a true Communist state be established in Animal Farm without becoming Stalinist like in turned out to be eventually?

Yes, I read it. George Orwell is a great writer. :)

Animal Farm is an allegorical history of the Soviet Union. The thing that went wrong in Animal Farm is the same thing that went wrong in the Soviet Union: Stalin (Napoleon the pig) took over, killed or exiled the real communists (Snowball), gradually perverted communism and created a system where all communist principles were turned on their head ("all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"). You should notice that Animal Farm is not a pro-capitalist book; the capitalists (the human farmers) are evil. And the message of Animal Farm is that stalinists are essentially the same as the capitalists.

Of course, the actual process by which Napoleon took power in the book is not the same as Stalin's rise to power in real life. There are four main reasons why Stalin - and therefore stalinism - took over the Soviet Union:

1. A defective democracy. Soviet Russia (and later the Soviet Union) was meant to be a democracy, but it suffered from the lack of a proper infrastructure for elections, the fact that a large portion of the population was uneducated and illiterate, and various Civil War measures that resulted in an excessive concentration of power in the hands of the Communist Party. If the Soviet Union had been a proper, working democracy, Stalin would have been stopped in his tracks.

2. The failure of the other European Revolutions (particularly the German Revolution, which had been very promising). It was always known that building socialism in a backwards, underdeveloped country like Russia would be extremely difficult unless it got help from a more advanced country that was also in the process of building socialism. Such a country could have been Germany, or any other from Western Europe, if a revolution was successful there. But all the European Revolutions (other than the Russian one) were eventually crushed, and Russia found itself utterly alone.

3. War. Specifically, WW1 and the Russian Civil War. Not only did it destroy most of Russia's infrastructure and industry, but it also caused Lenin and other communists to assume emergency powers, which contributed to weakening the infant Soviet democracy (this ties in with reason #1).

4. A series of mistakes and miscalculations on the part of the honest communists.

As you can see, the rise of stalinism was a very unlikely event; it was only made possible by a combination of unpredictable historical circumstances, which is why stalinism is often considered a fluke of history. At any rate, with the knowledge we have now, we can prevent it from ever happening again.

[ordos45]

He also does the aministrative work and supervising of 12 stores.  And he had to invest a large amount of money saved over his life to start the first one.  And while this does prove your point, it also shows some employers are willing to work themselves as much as their employees. 

I'd never realized the story was that allegorical.

[Dante]

We had to learn about it in class a few years ago. Er... I think. Or I might just have read it myself. I can't remember... Darn. In any case, someone spent a great deal of time talking to me about the book and it's significance with relation to history and politics. I took the lessons on board, you can be assured. ;)

On a side note, in relation to Edric's point #4, Lenin himself actually recommended, before he died, that Stalin should not assume too much power (Edric will know this of course...). Unfortunately not enough people took his words on board, and by the time they realised their mistake it was too late.

[gunner154]

If the population were much much more educated (like in most first world countries today), socialism would be much more possible to establish, and any attempt to build stalinism would be quashed indefinitely?

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, if the education would be strictly driven by state. Like in era which you call "stalinism" it was. However, I prefer education without political control.

[Anathema]

I don't think Russia stould a chance of achieving communism. Essential political and economical reforms, so was the idea of the Bolshevics, could only be accomplished by a dictature wich would dissolve itself as soon as it had outgrown it's need. I think it's against the nature of autocracy, any autocracy, to give up the ruling power voluntary. Stalin was solely responsible for creating the system named after him, namely of unlimited cencure, terror and personal deification. But Russia may just as well have turned into a more conventional autocracy or an oligarchy of the party.

[Dante]

If the population were much much more educated (like in most first world countries today), socialism would be much more possible to establish, and any attempt to build stalinism would be quashed indefinitely?

Oh not necessarily. Look at some African states, or martial law Iraq. Or the way Russia and to a lesser extent the USA are headed... Even Britain, apparantly.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Err, no. Capitalism itself was first established by forcing the feudal aristocrats to give up their monopoly over political power and ownership of land, and it didn't turn into anything like stalinism, did it? Likewise, when stalinism itself was overthrown just 15 years ago, and the stalinists were forced to give up their power and quite considerable personal fortunes, that didn't lead to a new form of stalinism, did it?

There is a right way and a wrong way to force the old ruling class to give up its wealth and power. You get stalinism only if you do it the wrong way.

That would be true if they had actually rightfully earned it, of course. But they haven't. They've rightfully earned only a small part of their wealth through their own work, and obtained the rest by exploiting their workers.

The opportunity to get rich by doing something encourages people to do that something. But the "something" does not necessarely have to be work. In capitalism, you don't get rich by working - you get rich by getting other people to work for you.

In addition, when we're talking about the opportunity to get rich, another question should also be asked: HOW rich? Capitalism allows people to get ridiculously rich, leading to concentrations of immense wealth in very few hands.

don't you think that if you have a harder work you should get more money for the work done? a rich person doesn't necessarily work so much when he has become rich, but he has in his past.

for example Bill Gates, I don't know so much about him, but he has earned money on his ideas, and it is not fair at all if he were just to give away all the money he has earned for the work he had done. I cannot see how this by any chance would be fair. but of course it depends if you value the individual or the society(dunno how to put it in english). but humans are greedy out of nature, and I am sure that if you had so much money you would not voluntarily give it up.

I think that a person should have the opportunity to become better than others. I would at least not be encouraged to work very hard if I were to get the exact same payment as one who did not work as hard as me.

[Anathema]

Actually Bill Gates has recently given away over half of his money, and now he's no longer the richest man in the world (the position is now held by the founder of Ikea, a Swedish company). Still he remains so filthy rich he probably won't miss a dime of what he's given.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

yeah he is a very generous man. but what he gives away is voluntarily.

if he lived in a communist country he would have to give away everything he had, and get the same payments as a filthy poor person who works with garbage, even though he had worked hard all his life to acheive what he had.

anyway is the founder of ikea the richest man in the world? last time I saw I don't think he possessed the second place...wasn't saddam hussein also pretty rich before?

[Caid Ivik]

yeah he is a very generous man. but what he gives away is voluntarily.

if he lived in a communist country he would have to give away everything he had, and get the same payments as a filthy poor person who works with garbage, even though he had worked hard all his life to acheive what he had.

anyway is the founder of ikea the richest man in the world? last time I saw I don't think he possessed the second place...wasn't saddam hussein also pretty rich before?

In communism he wouldn't be able to show his personal greatness  ;D  ah, this was a bad one...

[Dude_Doc]

don't you think that if you have a harder work you should get more money for the work done?

The essence in Socialism isn't that you work because you somehow have to, but because if you do so all men and women will benefit from your work. For example, do you help your parents and friends for money? Well, most of us do not, I hope. We help because we know that helping others will improve society, just like helping your parents will help the family as a whole.

This is a somewhat problem in the world. We see each other as enemies, as somekind of aliens we haven't seen before. Capitalism force us to work against each other, instead of side by side.

a rich person doesn't necessarily work so much when he has become rich, but he has in his past.

Everything should not be based on one person's past. This person should use his knowledge and experience to build society, not to invent something, make a lot of money, and live life happy ever after. The really rich persons owns huge corporate networks and have worked very little, if not at all.

for example Bill Gates, I don't know so much about him, but he has earned money on his ideas, and it is not fair at all if he were just to give away all the money he has earned for the work he had done.

Bill Gates has money enough to live his life several times over without doing anything. There are people in this world that can't even afford clean water. Is it fair when a person can re-live his life in luxury numerous of times without working, than a poor African that can't even get clean water for one day?

but humans are greedy out of nature, and I am sure that if you had so much money you would not voluntarily give it up.

Then why do people give up their money? Why do we care about the children in Africa, about them not having water, food or medical care? Why do we even care for the environment when, if continued on the present rate, we won't feel the effects before 2100?

When you demand money for helping your family and your friends, when you demand money for calling the ambulance for someone unable to, when you don't give a damn about what is going to happen to the environment, when you don't care if all animals are killed only for their skin, when you don't care that 3000 children die everyday somewhere in the world - then you are greedy. 

I think that a person should have the opportunity to become better than others.

When a person becomes "better" than everybody else, then that person also wields power over those that are "worse". Would you like someone here to have the power over you? I, for one, don't.

if he lived in a communist country he would have to give away everything he had, and get the same payments as a filthy poor person who works with garbage, even though he had worked hard all his life to acheive what he had.

He would probably not go to the Communist country in the first place. As I said before, you don't work for society because you recieve money, but for the knowledge that you improve society as a whole. You help people.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

whether I want money or not from friends or family depends on the work. I think you are a bit naiv there. of course family and friends pay one another for work. I would find it really strange if one didn't receive money for work... and if you do it for free it is often that you think that you eventually will get such a service in return anyway.

family and society are to completely different things!

and even though Bill Gates has money to spend in more than one liftime, shouldn't we respect him if he want to have this money, and give it to his children perhaps.

perhaps some africans don't have money but they don't live in the same country, so how could they have his money if they are not under the same government?

if a person is better than others he doesn't directly have power over them. but others would perhaps envy him for his skills, but so what.why can't we have  litttle competition...it is competition which brings the best in humans, it is what brings them forward.  I do not think we would have had so many great inventions and such technological progress with a communist goverment.