Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Here are some possible starting points for our discussion:

As time goes by, the history of “Animal Farm” and the precepts of “Animalism” are gradually re-invented by the pigs. What’s the effect on the animals/readers of this constant revision of the truth?

Was there any one event when the ending of the story became inevitable? Or do you think it was inevitable from the beginning?

What does this story offer to a modern reader?

I’d like to think the ending wasn’t inevitable, but I keep thinking about the mystery of the milk, and the seeds of deceit and inequity seemed to start from the very beginning.

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

First Revision
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.

Second Revision
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

Third Revision
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.

Final Revision
All previous commandments were removed and replaced with:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

The animals just accepted the revisions out of their confusion. For readers the revisions served to illustrate how language can be manipulated to gain and maintain control.

For modern readers, this serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of critical thinking and vigilance against authoritarianism and propaganda. Recognizing manipulation is not enough; clarity plus non-acceptance is necessary. Benjamin the donkey, despite his awareness, remains passive, highlighting the ineffectiveness of inaction. But how can one donkey be more effective than a canon full of feathers against such ruthless opposition?

The lack of collective action among the animals allows the pigs to consolidate power unchecked. This underscores the necessity for communities to unite and actively resist oppressive regimes to prevent the erosion of freedoms and equality.

What I find particularly insidious is the gradual erosion of freedoms. It slowly creeps up on the animals. And the trouble is that if one accepts the first commandment revision without question and/or dismisses it as being fairly innocuous, then the second revision becomes easier to accept, and so on, and so on, until all freedoms are curtailed. By the time they figure the damage that's been done, it is either impossible or exceedingly difficult to reverse course.

The other thing I find very troublesome is how does one determine where to draw the line? At which point should they have said a resounding "No!" Was it when the milk and apples were given exclusively to the pigs? When Snowball was accused of treachery? When they silenced the liberation anthem? At which point should they have drawn the line and taken a collective position to stop the encroachment on their freedoms?

Where to draw the line is important and hard to answer.

One might say that they went wrong before the rebellion even started, when Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer established themselves as leaders, and there was some ridiculing of the animals that couldn't read or asked stupid questions.

Or perhaps even earlier with Old Major's unrealistic vision that defined good as the opposite of man. This us versus them perspective is clearly defined in the first six commandments, but those commandments are really a codified version of Old Major's speech in the first chapter. Their vision and definition of the society they wanted is a negative version of the system they were in. It is based on what they hated, not what they wanted.

If all of that is too early, then perhaps in chapter three, when the puppies are stolen away from their mothers, and a few lines later, when they learn that "the mystery of the milk" is that the pigs get it and no one else does. This taking away from mothers is repeated with the selling of the hens' eggs in chapter seven.

On the topic of children, I want to return to an observation I made in the discussion on the first seven chapters. After chasing off or eliminating Snowball, Napoleon was the only boar left on the farm. In chapter nine, he fathers 31 pigs from four sows. In contrast to the theft of the eggs or the kidnapping and police education of the puppies, his children require the building of a new schoolhouse. Boxer felt additional pressure to work because of this

...Boxer worked harder than ever... Apart from the regular work of the farm, and the rebuilding of the windmill, there was the schoolhouse for the young pigs... Sometimes the long hours on insufficient food were hard to bear, but Boxer never faltered.

This additional pressure and labor, along with age, weakened him and made him susceptible to injury.

Tamara wrote: "What I find particularly insidious is the gradual erosion of freedoms. It slowly creeps up on the animals. And the trouble is that if one accepts the first commandment revision without question and..."

Usually this is how rights are stolen in dictatorships. If we go to Nazi Germany, the Final Solution did not appear in 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor, it arose with gradual erosion of the human rights. I could use a Brazilian example. When the Military dictatorship took power in 1964, it gradually removed some rights from the people. The enacted Institutional Acts, the 5th one is the most remembered. It was the most brutal of the 17 ones..

Tamara wrote: "What I find particularly insidious is the gradual erosion of freedoms.."

The insidious nature of the gradual erosion of freedoms produced a sickening feeling in my stomach. Slippery slope arguments are often dismissed as fallacies, but Animal Farm exemplifies a scenario where each minor concession leads inexorably to greater losses of liberty. Each new precedent sets the stage for the following transgressions more palatable, ultimately culminating in a totalitarian regime.​ This progression underscores the necessity of not only vigilance but speaking up.

. . .and when they came back in the evening it was noticed that the milk had disappeared.

That very passive, it was noticed ending the chapter was very telling. The animals failed to speak up and take any action. Simply noticing was not enough.

Tamara wrote: "The other thing I find very troublesome is how does one determine where to draw the line?"

I can only suppose that constant vigilance and consistent and effective corrective action play crucial roles, but your mileage may vary depending on the case and one should prepare for mixed results. Beyond that, perhaps the mistakes that slip through must be made in order to learn and recover from them, if you can.

Michael wrote: "Or perhaps even earlier with Old Major's unrealistic vision that defined good as the opposite of man."

The ideological origins of the animals' missteps in Animal Farm is insightful. However, I'd like to offer a perspective that nuances the critique of Old Major's vision.

While it is true that Old Major's speech delineates a clear and problematic us versus them dynamic, positioning humans as the oppressors, this framework reflects the historical context of the Russian autocracy under the Tsar. The animals' grievances mirror those of the Russian people, who suffered under an oppressive regime. In this light, Old Major's vision isn't merely a negative reaction but a rallying cry against systemic injustice.

Drawing parallels, the American Revolution also began as a response against monarchical tyranny, leading to the establishment of a republic founded on Enlightenment ideals. Similarly, Old Major's dream, though perhaps idealistic, aimed to inspire a society based on noble ideas of equality and shared prosperity.

The tragedy in Animal Farm arises not from the vision itself but from its subsequent corruption. The pigs' gradual accumulation of power and the distortion of the Seven Commandments illustrate how noble ideals can be subverted when vigilance wanes. Orwell's satire focuses less on the ideology of Marxism and more on its perversion by totalitarian leaders.

While it's crucial to scrutinize the foundations of revolutionary movements, it is equally important to recognize the role of power dynamics and human (or animal) agency in the erosion of those ideals. The narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the need for continuous vigilance to safeguard against the corruption of foundational principles.

Rafael wrote: "Usually this is how rights are stolen in dictatorships. If we go to Nazi Germany.."

I completely agree—no totalitarian regime starts by announcing, 'Hey folks, from now on, you now have no rights, and we basically own you.' On the contrary, these shifts often happen subtly and gradually, except cases like 'martial law,' where fear can suppress any will to be free. The pace of this progression depends on various factors, such as the geopolitical landscape or a society’s cultural inclination toward rebellion.

As a general rule, whenever we hear words like 'democracy' or 'freedom' in political discourse, we must remain vigilant—it’s often a signal that certain rights may be at risk of being curtailed. The eastern part of our country, once called the 'Democratic Republic of Germany,' was far from democratic. Similarly, other examples include names like the 'People's Republic of...' that often disguise authoritarian systems.

For me, the most troubling situations aren't when a totalitarian regime initially takes power, but when a system that is fairly liberal and equitable gradually deteriorates into a de facto dictatorship. I'm talking about cases like the Roman Republic or even the Welmar Republic.


Susan wrote: "Was there any one event when the ending of the story became inevitable? Or do you think it was inevitable from the beginning?..."

I initially asked this question during the first week's discussion, but I now realize it fits better in here. It is also related to your question:

Can we envision an "Animal Farm Utopia"? Who should have taken the reins after the uprising to foster the best possible environment for all? Was a ruling class truly necessary? Perhaps the animals could have collaborated in a more organized fashion to generate a surplus. If so, who should have facilitated this organization? Could a form of direct democracy have been the answer?

Emil wrote: "Can we envision an "Animal Farm Utopia"? Who should have taken the reins after the uprising to foster the best possible environment for all?"

I have to wonder if Old Major would have been a better "philosopher leader", per Plato's philosopher king, if he were younger and strong enough to lead after the revolution?

David wrote: "Michael wrote: "The animals' grievances mirror those of the Russian people... American Revolution also began as a response against monarchical tyranny... The tragedy in Animal Farm arises not from the vision itself but from its subsequent corruption..."

I do agree that Animal Farm excels in showing the gradual corruption of their ideas and system. And I don't disagree about the origins of the revolution being reactionary. I'd say that is the case by definition.

What I am saying is that the codification of their ideals in the seven commandments does not do the work to positively define what they are for. "All animals are equal" is the exception. Overall, the commandments focus on what they are against. In U.S. government terms, it is more of a Declaration of Independence than a Constitution or Bill of Rights. The earliest red flag and sign of failure is that they didn't do the "in order to form a more perfect union..." part. They didn't have a Continental Congress with representation of all groups. The system was defined by the pigs only and this started at the end of chapter one.

The taking of the milk, and later that day, the taking of the puppies are the first positive, observable acts that violate "all animals are equal" but the negative (or missing) act of not including representation for all animal groups in the formation of the system came earlier. It was a power grab from the start.

David wrote: "Emil wrote: "Can we envision an "Animal Farm Utopia"? Who should have taken the reins after the uprising to foster the best possible environment for all?"

I have to wonder if Old Major would have been a better "philosopher leader", per Plato's philosopher king, if he were younger and strong enough to lead after the revolution? ..."

Yes, I think that is the hypothesis, that Stalin's (Napoleon's) communism is an evil perversion of Marxism (Old Major's vision).

I'm not sure whether Orwell believes Old Major could have done better or not, possibly. I think he ideologically wants that, but he also has Benjamin give us a very pessimistic view of things in the last chapter, he knows that things never had been, nor ever could be much better or much worse--hunger, hardship, and disappointment being... the unalterable law of life."

Michael wrote: "but the negative (or missing) act of not including representation for all animal groups in the formation of the system came earlier. It was a power grab from the start."

I think the initial matter of equality was settled from the start when Old Major called for a vote,

“Comrades,” he said, “here is a point that must be settled. The wild creatures, such as rats and rabbits—are they our friends or our enemies? Let us put it to the vote. I propose this question to the meeting: Are rats comrades?” The vote was taken at once, and it was agreed by an overwhelming majority that rats were comrades.

We are left with the question when the power grab started. Old Major serves as the ideological founder for the animals' rebellion, articulating a vision of equality and freedom from human oppression. However, he dies before the revolution occurs. His absence allows for the distortion of his principles by others, leading to a regime that ultimately mirrors the tyranny it sought to overthrow.

In contrast, several American Founding Fathers not only contributed to the revolutionary ideology but also played active roles in establishing and leading the new government. Notably, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were instrumental in both the fight for independence and the formation of the United States' political framework. Their direct involvement in governance helped ensure that the foundational ideals were more faithfully translated into practice.

The comparison highlights the importance of continued engagement by visionary leaders in the realization of their ideals. While Old Major's early death left a void that was filled by others with divergent agendas grabbing at power, the active participation of the American Founding Fathers in the nascent government helped to safeguard the principles they championed.

David wrote: "The comparison highlights the importance of continued engagement by visionary leaders in the realization of their ideals..."

Absolutely.

But also, that engagement should include representatives from each of the groups. Again, going back to the U.S. model, the Continental Congress included representatives from all the colonies. The result was not a perfect or ideal system, but instead a compromise that they all could agree to. This resulted in our bicameral congress with representatives based on population federated states. It also led to the shameful, but perhaps necessary to move forward, 3/5ths compromise in which slaves were only partially counted as people in population counts and government representation.

In the world of Animal Farm, the exclusion of the horses, goat, and donkey feels like moving from one authoritative system to another without proper inclusion of the representative populations.

The sheep and hens may have been more like slaves or maybe people who weren't landowners. They also lacked representation but for different, socio-economic reasons.

David wrote: "The comparison highlights the importance of continued engagement by visionary leaders in the realization of their ideals..."

The problem as I see it lies in the definition of a "visionary leader." I have no doubt that dictators throughout time perceived themselves as "visionary leaders" who were realizing their ideals.

Whenever power is vested in the hands of an individual, including Major who espouses a vision of equality and freedom, the potential for abuse is always there. Even if Major had taken control and been able to apply his principles, there is no guarantee that whoever takes over after Major will adhere to the same principles. I think it is a mistake to place one's trust in Major--or any other like-minded individual--to protect freedom.

Once power is vested in the hands of an individual, no matter how noble that individual might be and no matter how noble his/her aspirations, the potential for abuse is ever present. The only way around this, as I see it, is to establish a system where power is decentralized, i.e. avoid a hierarchical structure where one individual gets to call all the shots.

This was my first time reading this book and all I can say is WOW, WOW, WOW!!! So relevant to what is going on today in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. I did not read any critiques or the introduction in the book (75th anniversary edition) before finishing this short impactful novel as I wanted to expereince it all for myself.

I could see all that was happening as the original vision of freedom and equality for Animal Farm eroded and the totalitarian "governance" developed, and inequal class structure was cemented. I was perplexed at the execution of the animals that came forward to confess their treasonous acts. As we know, none of them participated against the leadership or the plans for moving forward; so what made them spout those lies and accept punishment and after the first group came forward why would anyone follow knowing that they would be executed as well??? That whole scene shocked me. Did I miss something?

Tamara wrote: "Whenever power is vested in the hands of an individual, including Major who espouses a vision of equality and freedom, the potential for abuse is always there."

This has been most often correct of course; individual leaders that are not absolutely corrupted by absolute power are a scarcity. Some system of checks and balances "should" help, right? But the text is not about what Old Major would have instituted once he was in power or not, its about however appealing an ideal sounds, it can be used and hijacked by greedy self-serving pigs and authoritarian regimes for their own ends by those very slippery slopes we previously discussed.

I think it fitting to recall the question of the hour at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Benjamin Franklin was approached by Elizabeth Willing Powel, a prominent Philadelphia socialite and political salonnière. She inquired, "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin famously responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Chris wrote: " I was perplexed at the execution of the animals that came forward to confess their treasonous acts. As we know, none of them participated against the leadership or the plans for moving forward; so what made them spout those lies and accept punishment and after the first group came forward why would anyone follow knowing that they would be executed as well???"

At the risk of making this too political, here are three U.S.-specific thoughts that come to mind for me
* In the height of the COVID pandemic, why did Herman Cain insist on attending an event without a mask as a political statement, only to become infected and die a month later?
* During the Flint Water Crisis (where lead was added to the water supply), why did a significant portion of the population continue to support the politicians poisoning their community? They were a minority for sure, but still, there was a significant number,
* Why are children in Texas dying from measles when vaccines have been available for over 50 years?

-----
I asked AI for an explanation of the behavior in the book and it offered

Mass Hysteria (or Mass Psychogenic Illness): The atmosphere of fear, public accusations, and executions creates a highly stressful and psychologically charged environment. In such situations, suggestibility increases, and individuals may genuinely come to believe false narratives or feel compelled to conform to the prevailing fear...

Emil wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Usually this is how rights are stolen in dictatorships. If we go to Nazi Germany.."

I completely agree—no totalitarian regime starts by announcing, 'Hey folks, from now on, you now ..."

And, usually, people dismiss the alerts given by those that see this gradual erosion of rights as exaggerations.

It made me remember the famous and superquoted poem "First They Came For" by Niemöller

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

Chris wrote: "I was perplexed at the execution of the animals that came forward to confess their treasonous acts. As we know, none of them participated against the leadership or the plans for moving forward; so what made them spout those lies and accept punishment and after the first group came forward why would anyone follow knowing that they would be executed as well??? That whole scene shocked me. Did I miss something?..."

As has been said, many of the events in Animal Farm were modeled on the Russian Revolution and subsequent events. The staged confessions and executions are specifically based on the “show trials” under Stalin: https://www.britannica.com/event/Grea....
As the article says, “ It was subsequently established that the accused were innocent, that the cases were fabricated by the secret police (NKVD), and that the confessions were made under pressure of intensive torture and intimidation.” Orwell does a masterful job of conveying both the horror and the phoniness.

Regarding the "show trial" and executions, I am puzzled by the dogs going after Boxer,

. . .the dogs had tasted blood, and for a few moments they appeared to go quite mad. To the amazement of everybody, three of them flung themselves upon Boxer. Boxer saw them coming and put out his great hoof, caught a dog in mid-air, and pinned him to the ground. The dog shrieked for mercy and the other two fled with their tails between their legs. Boxer looked at Napoleon to know whether he should crush the dog to death or let it go. Napoleon appeared to change countenance, and sharply ordered Boxer to let the dog go, whereat Boxer lifted his hoof, and the dog slunk away, bruised and howling.

Napoleon appeared to change countenance seems to imply something I think I am missing. Did Napoleon intend to kill Boxer here, but the failure of his dogs to apprehend him cause him to change his mind? Does Boxer's look to Napoleon to crush the dog or not demonstrate a level of subservience to Napoleon that Napoleon realized was useful and to execute Boxer now would be a mistake?

David wrote: "Regarding the "show trial" and executions, I am puzzled by the dogs going after Boxer,
. . .the dogs had tasted blood, and for a few moments they appeared to go quite mad. To the amazement of eve..."

If you recall, in the scene just before this, Boxer challenged Squealer about Snowball's treachery. He said he didn't believe Snowball had been a traitor in the beginning, but when told Napoleon claimed Snowball had been Jones' agent, Boxer accepted it because "Napoleon is always right." Then we get this:

"That is the true spirit, comrade!" cried Squealer, but it was noticed he cast a very ugly look at Boxer with his little twinkling eyes.

It was right after this scene that the dogs attack Boxer. He manages to subdue them and has the strength to destroy them. He may be the only animal that can do so. I took it to mean that Napoleon realizes Boxer can destroy his guard dogs, which means Boxer is a threat to his ability to retain power. Even though Boxer backs down when told to do so by Napoleon, Napoleon sees he has the potential to pose a threat. That's why Boxer has to be destroyed.

I do recall that, but didn't give the ugly look enough emphasis thinking Boxer was too simple and easy to fool to worry about. And of course Napoleon waits until Boxer is completely used up and lost his considerable strength.

We talked about favorite characters, but I have to say Squealer is the most repulsive character on my list.

David wrote: "We talked about favorite characters, but I have to say Squealer is the most repulsive character on my list..."

Me, too. I think Squealer is pretty disgusting.

The tragedy is that Boxer was strong enough and well-respected enough to have made a difference. And his friend Benjamin knew enough about what was happening that he could have educated Boxer and motivated him to act or lead. He was too cynical, I think, to believe they could make a difference and didn't speak up about anything until Boxer was being hauled away - too little, too late.

Mollie just never bought into it, and when it became clear that no one was on her side, particularly when Clover chided her for being pet and found hidden ribbons, she decided to immigrate away from the farm and become a refugee somewhere else.

Clover is another tragic figure. It is through her eyes that we see the changing commandments. She asks Muriel the goat to read the commandments to her in chapters six and eight and then Benjamin to read them to her in chapter ten. She senses the commandments had changed and knows something is off. She is our witness, slowly disillusioned with the revolution and coming to terms with the reality of the situation.

In summary, we have
Boxer - Perhaps the only one with the strength and influence to change the trajectory of things, but a true believer in the cause
Benjamin - A cynic who has seen it all before and does not take initiative to educate others
Mollie - Opts out of the whole thing
Clover - Learns, and I think changes her mind on things, bit by bit but it takes far too long

David wrote: "And of course Napoleon waits until Boxer is completely used up and lost his considerable strength..."

I think it is true that Boxer would continue to be a threat to Napoleon, even in his old age because of the respect he demands from other animals. Though that would depend on Boxer taking a stand. There are two other big motivators to eliminate Boxer.

* The avoidance of paying retirement - Boxer was expecting it, and presumably, Napoleon didn't want to establish that as a pattern. In the last chapter, there is no retirement age, and all the animals continue working
* The opportunity to use the money from selling him for parts to buy more whisky (see the last two paragraphs of chapter nine culminating in "...from somewhere or other the pigs had acquired the money to buy themselves another case of whiskey.)

A side note, in chapter one Old Major prophesies Boxer's fate "You, Boxer, the very day that those great muscles of yours lose their power, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will cut your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds." Jones would likely have bought some alcohol and got drunk with the money just like the pigs did.

Susan wrote: The staged confessions and executions are specifically based on the “show trials” under Stalin: https://www.britannica.com/event/Grea....
As the article says, “ It was subsequently established that the accused were innocent, that the cases were fabricated by the secret police (NKVD), and that the confessions were made under pressure of intensive torture and intimidation.”

I know about show trials in various countries; I just did not see a scene where any pressure was placed under these characters to make these false confessions. Are you thinking that this occurred "off-stage" and we just assume that is why they did it?

Chris wrote: "I just did not see a scene where any pressure was placed under these characters to make these false confessions. Are you thinking that this occurred "off-stage" and we just assume that is why they did it?"

The observation about the absence of explicit coercion in the text is a good one. While Orwell doesn't detail the methods used to extract the confessions, the text and historical parallels suggest that these admissions were not voluntary.​

The passage describing the four pigs' confessions is telling:​

The four pigs waited, trembling, with guilt written on every line of their countenances. Napoleon now called upon them to confess their crimes. They were the same four pigs as had protested when Napoleon abolished the Sunday Meetings. Without any further prompting they confessed that they had been secretly in touch with Snowball...

The phrase without any further prompting may suggest spontaneity, but the confessions about Snowball are clearly fabricated to make him a scapegoat indicating they were coerced and likely supplied for them by Squealer. The immediate executions following their confession both eliminates any chance the pigs have to recant them later and reinforces the atmosphere of fear and control.​

While the text doesn't detail the coercion process, the implications and historical context strongly suggest that the confessions were neither voluntary nor genuine.

Chris wrote: " Susan wrote: The staged confessions and executions are specifically based on the “show trials” under Stalin: https://www.britannica.com/event/Grea....
As the article says, “ It was subsequently es..."

Yes, we see the results of the off stage coercion just as most of the animals do — without seeing the “behind the scenes” reality. Orwell gives the reader both that “naive” perspective of “voluntary” confessions and the context that implies what lies behind the surface, presenting a kind of double perspective of events.

Re: Mollie — I interpreted Mollie as someone who liked the original system with Jones because 1) she was singled out, getting sugar treats and ribbons for her mane and 2) she had the job of pulling the buggy, which was lighter than the loads Clover and Boxer had to pull. So her opting out represented her special position in the old system

David wrote: "Regarding the "show trial" and executions, I am puzzled by the dogs going after Boxer,
. . .the dogs had tasted blood, and for a few moments they appeared to go quite mad. To the amazement of eve..."

I thought Boxer was marked for destruction by Napoleon in this scene despite all Boxer’s support for the Revolution and for Napoleon himself because Boxer had questioned the latest revisionary history of the battle of the cowshed which cast Snowball as a traitor in that battle. Despite all his support and contributions, his questioning of the official line marked him for destruction, but he was too powerful for the dogs so Napoleon had to back down for the moment. The revisions of history as well as of the Animalism precepts leads to a world where a good memory is not always convenient!

Susan wrote: "The revisions of history as well as of the Animalism precepts leads to a world where a good memory is not always convenient!"

I think it is absolutely correct that Boxer’s brief questioning of the “Battle of the Cowshed” revision made him a threat despite his loyalty. What struck me is your line about good memory being inconvenient. Coupled with an atmosphere of fear good memory isn’t just inconvenient, it is both dangerous and nearly impossible to preserve.

Calling it gaslighting doesn’t even cover the half of it. From the revisions of the commandments, the historical re-imaginings, and the emotional manipulation, Orwell shows pretty clearly how truth itself is destabilized and redefined by those in control. Honestly, instead of renaming it back to Manor Farm, they should’ve called it Gaslight Farm.

Here are my notes on the human characters.

Mr. Jones (of Manor Farm)
Represents: Tsar Nicholas II, the overthrown monarch of Russia.
Symbolizes: Negligence, decadence, and the failure of the old regime.

Mrs. Jones, mentioned briefly when she flees.
She represents the aristocracy or idle upper class, fleeing as the revolution begins—like Tsarina Alexandra or Russian nobility.

Mr. Frederick (of Pinchfield Farm)
Represents: Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany
Evidence in text:
He initially pretends friendship with Animal Farm but betrays them by paying them with fake banknotes.
His invasion of the farm parallels Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s betrayal of the Nazi-Soviet Pact (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact).
His farm is efficient but cruel, and he is known for flogging animals and starving them.

Mr. Pilkington (of Foxwood Farm)
Represents: The Western powers, especially Britain and the United States
Evidence in text:
His farm is described as large, neglected, and overgrown, reflecting Western democracy's perceived weaknesses.
He is skeptical of the revolution but eventually toasts Napoleon, showing the post-WWII diplomatic pragmatism of the West with Stalin's USSR.

Mr. Whymper (the solicitor)
Represents: Western businessmen, lawyers, and intermediaries who traded with the Soviet Union or profited from it
Evidence in text:
Acts as Napoleon’s intermediary to the outside world.
Represents those willing to overlook oppression for profit or diplomatic relations.

The unnamed humans at the end (in the card game scene)
Represent: Other world powers and global elites
Symbolize how totalitarian regimes can be accepted or even admired when they become powerful or economically useful.
The animals can no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the humans signifying the new regime had become just another ruling class, indistinguishable from the human oppressors it had replaced.

And my notes on animal groups:

Bluebell, Jessie, and Pincher (the dogs)
Represent: The secret police (NKVD) under Stalin.
Symbolize: The force used by the ruling elite to intimidate and eliminate opposition.

The Pigs (as a class)
Represent: The Bolsheviks, especially the ruling elite of the Communist Party.
Symbolize: Those who seize power after the revolution and become indistinguishable from the previous oppressors.

The Hens
Represent: Peasant farmers, particularly those who resisted collectivization.
Note: Their rebellion over the eggs parallels the kulaks’ resistance to Soviet grain requisition.

The Pigeons
Represent: Soviet propaganda agents, sent abroad to spread revolutionary ideas.
Symbolize: The export of Communism.

The Sheep
Represent: The unthinking masses who are easily manipulated by slogans.
Symbolize: Blind conformity and mob mentality.

The Cows
Represent: Working-class laborers, particularly in agriculture.
Symbolize: Producers whose labor is exploited under both regimes.

The Rats
Represent: the homeless, vagrants, ethnic minorities, or social pariahs in both Tsarist Russia and the early Soviet Union.
Symbolize: The fragility and quick erosion of revolutionary inclusiveness since they are accepted but quickly disappear from the story. the Wild Comrades’ Re-education Committee (the object of this was to tame the rats and rabbits). Also possibly a satirical nod to the over-extension or naïveté of idealist movements that embrace all outcasts, even those whose loyalties or usefulness may be ambiguous.

And finally, my notes on animal characters:

Old Major (the boar)
Represents: A mix of Karl Marx (who inspired revolutionary theory) and Vladimir Lenin (whose vision spurred the Russian Revolution).
Symbolizes: Revolutionary ideology and the philosophical foundation of Animalism/Communism.
Note: He dies before the revolution, much like Marx before the rise of the Soviet state and Lenin before Stalin's total consolidation of power.

Boxer (the cart-horse)
Represents: The loyal proletariat, the working class.
Symbolizes: Hardworking, exploited laborers who are betrayed by the system they serve.
Famous slogans: "I will work harder." and "Napoleon is always right."

Clover (the cart-horse)
Represents: Working-class women, or the maternal side of the proletariat.
Symbolizes: Caring but naive individuals who are deeply loyal but quietly troubled by the regime.

Muriel (the white goat)
Represents: The literate minority among the working class, often reading the commandments for Clover when Benjamin refuses.
Symbolizes: Those with knowledge but little power to resist the system.

Benjamin (the donkey)
Represents: Intellectuals or skeptics, who are aware of what is going on but survive by saying nothing.
Symbolizes: Cynicism, long memory, and reluctant awareness. He knows what’s happening but feels powerless to change it.

The Ducklings (without their mother)
Represent: Orphans and the vulnerable, especially young victims of political upheaval.
Symbolize: Innocents swept up in the chaos of revolution.

Mollie (the mare who draws Mr. Jones’s trap)
Represents: The petit bourgeoisie or aristocracy, who fled Russia after the revolution.
Symbolizes: Those who prefer comfort and vanity over ideological struggle.

The Cat
Represents: Opportunists or the apolitical who benefit from all regimes without contributing.
Symbolizes: Self-interest and survival by avoidance.

Moses (the tame raven)
Represents: Organized religion, especially the Russian Orthodox Church.
Symbolizes: The promise of a better afterlife (“Sugarcandy Mountain”), used to placate the masses by both Jones and the Pigs.

Thanks for putting that together David. I've written most of it in the back of my copy next to my own notes

I was struck by this final description of Squealer in Chapter 10:

Squealer was so fat that he could with difficulty see out of his eyes.

I think this demonstrates the propagandist himself becoming incapable of perceiving reality by portraying a liar who spins enough falsehoods for others that eventually comes to believe them himself.

What is worse, i.e., more dangerous, a liar that knows he is deceiving and manipulating everyone, or a bullshitter, someone who is technically not lying because they have lost the capacity to know or care whether what he says is true or false?

David wrote: "I think this demonstrates the propagandist himself becoming incapable of perceiving reality by portraying a liar who spins enough falsehoods for others that eventually comes to believe them himself."

That's insightful. I support this reading 👏

I think the bullshitter is a broken liar. The act of lying is conscious and I feel that makes it worse on an individual level, however, a society in which bullshitting is normalized feels more hopeless.

I wanted to drop an observation on the use of alcohol. I don't have any real conclusions to draw from it other than it is being used as a signal of vice and corruption and a means to communicate that, in the end, they are back where they started or perhaps even worse off.

1. We start with a drunken and neglectful Jones as the ultimate evil
2. Moses eats beer-soaked bread from humans, a kind of perverse sacrament
3. After the Battle of the Windmill, the pigs discover a whiskey celler, Napoleon drinks and has a monster hangover, commandment is changed
4. They start growing and cooking barley, pigs are given an allowance of a pint of beer daily, Napoleon half a gallon
5. Moses returns and is allotted "a gill of beer a day" (a teacup)
6. Pigs buy whiskey with the money from selling Boxer
7. Pigs and men drink together and cheat at cards

Michael wrote: "Thanks for putting that together David. I've written most of it in the back of my copy next to my own notes"

I am going to tag onto this reply and add my voice to thanking David for the succinct notes about characters and groups and their symbolism.