This 6 page report discusses the 1946 classic “Animal Farm” and how it serves as an indictment of the totalitarian danger that exists in virtually all forms of supposed liberation. Orwell also expresses his opinions about nationalism, communism, capitalism and democracy and illustrates the potential for coercion and power grabbing in each. In other words, the possibility, in fact, the likelihood of power to corrupt must always be recognized in any system. No secondary sources.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_BWfarm.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Farmer Jones and establishment of a workers state "Animal Farm." The doubt that does exist, however, is determining in which other actions on "the farm" Orwell is also able
to express his opinions about nationalism, communism, capitalism and democracy. If the question is nothing more than: "Why should the animals work so
hard and allow the humans to reap all the benefit? Having chased the people off the farm, the animals set up a new society, with the pigs as leaders.
While the book has always been read as an indictment of repressive society that undermines or deletes the authority of the individual, it can also be seen as applying that
indictment to more than the revolutions taking place as Orwell was growing up witness. For example, it could just as easily serve as a metaphor for communism, nationalism, capitalism
and democracy. Is "Animal Farm" really a reactionary novel that rejects revolutionary change? It is difficult to see how this interpretation can be
sustained when we consider the Majors tremendous indictment of capitalism and call for revolution at the start of the book. All this clearly holds the favorable opinion of Orwell, himself
a committed socialist. And yet, Orwell might have been the only one who considered himself to be a socialist. However, because of his personal history, his conceptual weaknesses, his
lack of consistency in his political opinion, and one should not forget his obvious pessimism, the books were, undeniably, reactionary. What an odd irony that the book became such a
popular text of the political right. He once commented that he had not written a book against Stalinism to deny the right of revolt by oppressed people, nor to