/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3821466]

What'd you guys think of Animal Farm?

[Anonymous No.3821470]

stupid

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3821474]

epic for the win

[Anonymous No.3821505]

>>3821466
excellent message

[Anonymous No.3821517]

Four legs good two legs bad

[Anonymous No.3821520]

>>3821466
Good but overrated; just like 1984 and many others.

[Anonymous No.3821565]

>>3821520
>using overrated as an argument
srsly

[Anonymous No.3821859]

Orwell's best fictitious work.

[Anonymous No.3821892]

Poor political commentary based upon the unreliable knowledge of the Soviete Union that Orwell had at the time of his writing.

[Anonymous No.3821948]

>>3821892
>unreliable knowledge of the Soviete Union
>unreliable knowledge
>unreliable

It turned out to be true, and now the same process is being repeated by the CCP in China.

[Anonymous No.3821963]

I read it as a child, with an adult explaining the symbology to me and I was in love. It helped start my love of literature, and my fascination with political commentary.

Easy to read and an interesting way to get people into books.

[Anonymous No.3821971]

I love it. Since when did /lit/ start hating on Orwell?

[Anonymous No.3821996]

Grand.

[Anonymous No.3822010]

>>3821466
A very good read, I enjoyed it but it is a little overrated.

[Anonymous No.3822439]

OP here, I had to read it for school just recently and it really was a good read.
>mfw Boxer believes everything Napoleon does is good
>mfw that was the Russian public at the time

[Anonymous No.3822478]

>>3821948
No it didn't. Orwell's critique of "socialist totalitarianism" is a page ripped from Trot, Nazi, and CIA propaganda. More important than that, it's weak as hell and demonstrates a piss poor knowledge of how to do class analysis on a basic level, from a proclaimed socialist himself.

Also, Orwellianism never really came true? The USSR degenerated because they abandoned Marxism in favor of gradual liberalization until its dissolution consummated the inherent contradictions, and now global capital rules unfettered . . . and the imperialist states don't commit violence the way its described in 1984 or Animal Farm. People only cling to Orwell so they can scream "Big Brother!!!!" whenever they find out the NSA is spying on their stupid mundane text messages and forum posts while millions are strangled by starvation in the third world.

basically Orwell is a fantasy writer.

[Anonymous No.3822479]

I really loved it. I think the phrase "All animals are equals, some are more equals than others" is one of the strongest message we could share with the actual society. If you take the opinion of the classic writers from the 17th century in France, they used to say (particularly Boileau): A perfect sentence is one that has a deep message and is as clear as crystal to understand for everyone. I think that particular sentence defines that perfection Boileau was talking about. a strong message written crystal clear for everyone in this society to understand and relate to.

[Anonymous No.3822508]

I agree with >>3821520 in that it is slightly overrated, however I believe it's a great piece of literature.

[Anonymous No.3822538]

I freaking LOVE Orwell, and all SORTS of stupid baby-leftist faggot bullshit like it! I"m a fureaking anarcho communist or some shit!!! Did you know that REAL communism has NEVEWR been implemented? woahhog *turds drop out of my mouth*

[Anonymous No.3822570]

>>3822538
wtf

[Anonymous No.3822612]

>>3822478
haha oh man this is harsh

but exactly what I've been thinking tbh.

[Anonymous No.3822621]

>>3822478
brave new world is the best dystopian novel.

[Anonymous No.3822636]

I read it as a kid and it really fucking bummed me out. I loved it but god if it wasn't depressing. It wasn't until later that I realized that it was the Rise of the Soviet Union but with Animals.

[Anonymous No.3822641]

Thought it was really heavy-handed and silly. Hard to believe 1984 was published only four years later.

[Anonymous No.3822657]

Sometimes looking at the petty insult passing that passes for political satire these days I say to myself, satire used to mean something.

Then I remember Animal Farm and realise that no, no it didn't.

[Anonymous No.3822665]

>>3822478
>Thinking any of Orwell's books were meant to be predictions

[Anonymous No.3822681]

My parents used to read it to me when I was a kid. I always felt sad for that horse who got euthanized near the end.

Thank god for capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3822683]

>>3822478
>being a communist

That aside, it was a good book. Brave New World is still the better dystopia.

[Anonymous No.3822742]

>>3822641
>Orwell could be heavy handed and silly
>cite 1984 as evidence of Orwell NOT being heavy handed and silly

[Anonymous No.3822744]

A pig is a terrible thing to taste.

[Anonymous No.3822745]

>>3822478
>mfw someone with sense appears on lit

[Anonymous No.3822746]

worse than War With the Newts, better than Cat's Cradle

[Anonymous No.3822773]

Not one of Orwells finest books, both 1984 and Animal farm are only saw as his 'key works' because of the fact they can both can have depth and be simplistic all at once, if read to a young child he will surely pick up a very different idea of what the inner meaning is compared to you or I. The concepts of animal farm and 1984 far from original either, the general ideology of 1984 and animal farm are far from different either.

Tl;dr Orwell is over saturated.

[Anonymous No.3822791]

>>3822746

Well, I NEVER!

[Anonymous No.3822840]

Didn't really like it. Not my taste.

[Anonymous No.3822899]

>>3822665
This, but it was still a good post.

[Anonymous No.3822933]

>>3822478
No, people cling to Animal Farm because he provided a critique to Communism and the Soviet Union in a comprehendible, allegorical piece of fiction. The whole point of the book was to show that a Utopian society is not reachable, and striving to get towards one only leads to Tyranny. There were little things in the book that he took personal swings at, such as the actions of Bolshevik leaders and Capitalism. And I agree some of these arguments were flawed. But, we cannot miss the whole idea of the book, which I stated previously. That's what makes Animal Farm such a great book to some people. That, and the fact it didn't take a genius to read and analyze it.
>millions are strangled by starvation in the third world.
Oh don't give me that bullshit. You are just using this to make the people who are Orwell fans look bad without actually doing anything. I've seen these failed disagreeing arguments used by people who feel they are above society and it's flaws and therefore have the right to accuse people of corrupt morality. These are very hypocritical, as very often, the people who use these ad hominem arguments will go around acting like they have the authority to critique others' morality when they hardly do anything about what they're accusing of what the other person was/people were doing. Unless you're taking trips to Ethiopia every summer or donating a large sum of your income to 3rd world charities, you have no use, or the right, for this argument other than dodging a fallacy in the original point you were making.

[Anonymous No.3822947]

>>3822933
>No, people cling to Animal Farm and Orwell

[Anonymous No.3822974]

>>3821520

imo Animal Farm is overrated, but 1984 isn't.

[Anonymous No.3822987]

Well, the book is aesthetically bland. It's not like the prose is terrible, it's just very plain. Simply put, it reads like a children's book (which some argue that it is). Plot-wise, the characters are boring. The reason for this is clear- the social commentary is pretty black and white. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing that it's that way, but that doesn't excuse the shallow characters. The plot itself isn't too interesting. In fact, it would be a completely shit plot if not for the fact that it has animals for the main characters, adapting to human-like roles (again, this doesn't excuse the lack of an interesting plot). The last category I'll be looking at is meaning/symbolism. This is where most people praise the book. Yes, it's all about the revolution-era Russia. Of course that is a somewhat interesting idea, it's not deep enough to keep the book afloat on its own. Once you hear the truth of the meaning, it's not really something that can be pondered. It is not intellectual. It is just history. To me, a book must have a deep and thought-provoking meaning in order to excuse it from its lacking in other areas. The analogy that this book is has no power to provoke thought. It is open and shut.

It's not a bad book. I would say its main worth is educating children about the Russian revolution. I would only recommend it to an adult if they wished to learn more on that subject.

I haven't read any of Orwell's other work, and I don't know that I will.

[Anonymous No.3823061]

>>3822933
blah blah blah I don't know history, I don't know Marx, I don't know socialism, I don't know the Soviet Union, I don't know capital, I don't know imperialism, I don't even know totalitarianism, blah blah blah, I'm an undergrad who got a B+ in World History 101 blah blah blah.

Quit with your ignorant moralizing and idealism and maybe pick up a book, maybe you'll learn why you're totally wrong. I definitely don't have the patience to show you.

[Anonymous No.3823067]

>>3822987
The funny thing is, for all his whining over totalitarianism, his own ideal for what prose should look like is fairly totalitarian itself.

[Anonymous No.3823071]

I love it.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3823084]

>>3822933
>Unless you're taking trips to Ethiopia every summer or donating a large sum of your income to 3rd world charities, you have no use, or the right, for this argument other than dodging a fallacy in the original point you were making.
This is less compelling when you consider that Orwell actively worked as a colonialist in Burma and relishes in describing "sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere" with "hideous laughter." Despite his token distaste for imperialism, the colonized barely figure into his analysis because he barely considers them to be human. I hope we're a little more "moral" than that.

>>3823061
This isn't really a helpful response

[Anonymous No.3823088]

>>3822987
Generally, I agree with this guy.

Having said that, the book isn't bad. It just isn't great.
Orwell's other work is above it.
Read 1984.

[Anonymous No.3823090]

>>3822933
stalin was probably best known for starting the animal farm, where prisoners were expected to work themselves for freedom until the year 1984. stalin was a friend of hitler's, and probably even a bit worse, but hitler killed more jews, while stalin mostly killed other russians. then there was a solidarity in poland and the evil empire started to show cracks in the foundation. this is all pretty basic stuff though, check out the cato institute blog for more detailed arguments.

[Anonymous No.3823103]

>>3823090
>Hitler
6000
>Stalin
20000
>Mao
50000

Of course, this doesn't take into account timespans.

[Anonymous No.3823127]

>The whole point of the book was to show that a Utopian society is not reachable, and striving to get towards one only leads to Tyranny.
The point was to destroy the myth the Soviet Union was putting out about its development.
Orwell was a Trotskyite.
>http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/ukrainian-af-pref.htm
Read.

[Anonymous No.3823128]

>>3823103
it also doesn't take into account reality or history or anything that happened ever in real life

[Anonymous No.3823159]

>>3822538
You are really not good at trolling and even worse at caricature. Please learn to write before posting next time. Take it as a friend advice, you are pitiful.
2/10 made me pity you

[Anonymous No.3823170]

>>3823067
I think you mistook his advice on political writing with his view on prose in general.

[Anonymous No.3823177]

>>3823159
>Pointing out that a particular poster isn't good at trolling or caricature on 4chan

Give it up son, it's futile. You'll never win.

[Anonymous No.3823190]

It seems that most people seems to underestimate the ideological clout that the Soviet Union had during the Cold War. The ideals that USSR supposedly embodied were used as a political tool by the Kremlin. Look at how a great deal of the French intellectuals during twentieth century were fascinated by communism, the soviet society and maoism. Orwell's works, including Animal Farm, were much relevant in that respect. Also, AF can be seen as a children tale about power and how ideals are a derivative way of getting it. Think about the last scene were the pigs look exactly like humans. I think taking Animal Farm only as an allegory for the Soviet Union actually weakens the point of Orwell, its reach is potentially broader than that. As for those who expect class analysis in a book that is barely longer than a short story and features talking animals as its protagonists, I'd like to know why they think it was required in such a work.

[Anonymous No.3823198]

>>3823177
I didn't intended to win. But this troll/caricature was of particularly atrocious quality. Most trolls I see on /lit are much better. Also, unless you provide me compelling genetical evidence, I'll say that I am unlikely to be your son.

[Anonymous No.3823218]

I think the people who have the idea that it was meant to be some sort of prediction/deep analytical and elaborate piece of communist concrit are out of their minds.

It was meant to be an easy read to make the general public, even the people lurking /r9k/, think about a couple of things and ask themselves a couple of questions about their own government, but mostly about communist governments and the purpose and results of insurgencies.
I thought it was very effective, and is still very effective at that today.
I enjoyed it much more than 1984, which made everything seem quite bland and unfulfilling, unlike Animal Farm which left you with a bitter aftertaste, at least.

[Anonymous No.3823284]

>>3823218
Both 1984 and Animal Farm serve as little more than anticommunist propaganda and it is extremely unlikely that it is going to make someone question their own government as their narrative is far too simplistic to even imply that such things aren't unique to communism. 1984 and Animal Farm are only invoked when criticizing the left not the right which is why such terms in the book aren't used when talking about right wing dictatorships like in Portugal.

[Anonymous No.3823307]

>>3823284
Seriously, fuck all these dorks with their "Ah, yes, it's really not quite as ideological as you think".

The whole point is that it's leftist anticommunism. It's only ever upheld by Trots, Liberals, and Conservatives. Stop being so thick.

[Anonymous No.3823314]

>>3823284
>>3823307
Yet Animal Farm could be used against pretty any modern revolution. It's clearly ideological, but you don't even need to know about the history of the Soviet Revolution (for instance the feud bteween Trotsky and Staline) to relate to the point. 1984 is much more specifically anti-communist with an actual "Party".

[Anonymous No.3823318]

perfect satire of the Soviet Union, basically

[Anonymous No.3823329]

>>3822478
Orwell's books weren't meant to be predictions.
Warnings, would be a better word. He didn't want society to turn out to be a completely totalitarian fascist state of oppression, so he wrote 1984 to show the world that -this- is what life would be like under a perfected totalitarian society.

[Anonymous No.3823362]

>>3823314
Revolutions aren't all the same, they have different class characters depending on the material conditions. You only reach Orwell's "replacing one elite with another" fable by ignoring reality.

>>3823329
But what's the point of such "warnings" if he ignores how totalitarianism works and comes about? If he doesn't even know the difference between fascists states and communist ones? (Because there is a huge class difference, you know...) It ignores that the most powerful and violent states both at the time and today were and are liberal democracies....so what the fuck is the use of warning against stuff that doesn't exist in the form you describe and isn't even a pertinent threat?

[Anonymous No.3823380]

>>3822478

Antirevisionist marxist-leninist on /lit/? Nice. I can´t even imagine how life is for you if you live in the US

[Anonymous No.3823409]

>>3823362
>Revolutions aren't all the same, they have different class characters depending on the material conditions.

Of course, but they always entails displacing an elite and replacing it somehow by another.

>You only reach Orwell's "replacing one elite with another" fable by ignoring reality.

You always ignore something of reality when you read. I don't really see the problem here. A fable is never meant to be really accurate. Also I don't understand why you bring fascism in your post later on.

>so what the fuck is the use of warning against stuff that doesn't exist in the form you describe

That is pretty much the point of a warning, sorting out the likely and very threatening outcome of something that is not as threatening yet.

>isn't even a pertinent threat ?

It was rather hard not to consider USSR a "pertinent threat" in 1948. The word superpower was coined for a reason.

>It ignores that the most powerful and violent states both at the time and today were and are liberal democracies

If you judge by number of casulalties, particularly among civilians casulatlies in their very territory, your claim is very contestable. The USSR was arguably as violent as the U.S during most part of Cold War (not necessarily more, but they rivaled each other in that respect too).
Today would be a different matter since all the major powers are liberal democracies (sort of).

[Anonymous No.3823413]

>>3823380
communist you are best ally

[Anonymous No.3823427]

I find it amusing how there can actually be a sort of mature discussion on communism and the soviet union in this place, /pol/ is a whole another story

[Anonymous No.3823433]

>>3823427
Well, as it says on the tin, /pol is not for /politics but for /politically incorrect. The whole premise of the board is "I must be right because I claim the exact contrary of what everyone believes".

[Anonymous No.3823435]

>>3823409
As more information emerges (though it is unlikely that we will know the full story being that many documents are still classified) the purges that happened under Stalin and the numbers involved have come under question by a few. Grover Furr for example in the book Khrushchev Lied refuted everything he said in his speech.

You can find a critical review of it here http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/books-arts-and-literature/khrushchev-lied-but-what-is-the-truth-1246.html and Grover's response here http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/books-arts-and-literature/rejoinder-to-roger-keeran-1262.html

[Anonymous No.3823440]

>>3823435

thanks comrade

[Anonymous No.3823447]

>>3823409
>Of course, but they always entails displacing an elite and replacing it somehow by another.

no

>You always ignore something of reality when you read

what the fuck are you talking about. Yeah, the written word doesnt capture full reality I guess in a sensory way, but what I was saying is that Orwell doesn't come close at all to describing it--he falsifies it. Like, he literally lies about things that happened.

>That is pretty much the point of a warning, sorting out the likely and very threatening outcome of something that is not as threatening yet.

Not a threat, never was a threat, never will be a threat. Orwell didn't understand authoritarianism and thus was in no position to "warn" against it.

>It was rather hard not to consider USSR a "pertinent threat" in 1948. The word superpower was coined for a reason.

A threat to what? Unrestrained capitalist expansion? I guess, like the same way food for a starving child is a "threat" to his hunger.

>If you judge by number of casulalties, particularly among civilians casulatlies in their very territory, your claim is very contestable. The USSR was arguably as violent as the U.S during most part of Cold War (not necessarily more, but they rivaled each other in that respect too).

Okay so you just don't really know history or political economy AT ALL, I see.

[Anonymous No.3823454]

>>3823440
I also recommend you check out From Farm to Factory by Robert C Allen which is about the economic history of Soviet Russia. Be sure to check out Geoffrey Roberts work and check out Domenico Losurdo's work which can be found here http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~marquit/nst161a.pdf#page=30 and here http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~marquit/nst134a.pdf#page=54

I'm not a Stalinist or even really a communist I just find the subject interesting and have started to question the 1984 narrative that infuses most historical works about Stalin.

[Anonymous No.3823457]

>>3823435
This is good. The guy makes some good critiques of Furr's over-reach and extent of apologism for Soviet excesses, but I'd still heartily recommend reading the book (with those criticisms in mind!)

Furr has his own interjections but for the most part his historical work speaks for itself

[Anonymous No.3823459]

>>3823454
Another good one is "Is the Red Flag Flying"

Socialism Betrayed is good.

And for "beginners", Blackshirts and Reds is great, concise, and informative as an intro

[Anonymous No.3823461]

>>3823459
p.s., the argument in Socialism Betrayed isn't a Trot one, i.e. the betrayal happens AFTER Stalin dies, and Stalin is argued to be more or less a true Marxist-Leninist.

for those unfamiliar with the antirevisionist position.

[Anonymous No.3823468]

fag shit for high school

[Anonymous No.3823474]

>>3823468

^ this

Also, everybody knows that socialism is a complete and utter failure and a useless ideology wrapped in delusions of imagined grandeur, but never in the shameless bloodshed.

[Anonymous No.3823476]

>>3823461

good to know, by the title I imagined Trot arguments

>>3823454
>I'm not a Stalinist or even really a communist I just find the subject interesting and have started to question the 1984 narrative that infuses most historical works about Stalin.

Much appreciated. As an antirevisionist sympathizer I have to deal very often with the Stalin question.

>>3823459
>>3823457
>>3823461
I don´t know if it is the same Anon, but thanks for the info

[Anonymous No.3823484]

>>3823474
>Yes, good goy, know your rightful master.

[Anonymous No.3823485]

>>3823447
>no

In this case I'd like to hear some counter-examples.

>Orwell doesn't come close at all to describing it--he falsifies it. Like, he literally lies about things that happened.

It's hard to lie about something that happens when you aren't describing facts. This critic might apply to 1984, applying it to Animal Farm is rather far-fetched. But again, some precise examples could do good.

>A threat to what? Unrestrained capitalist expansion? I guess, like the same way food for a starving child is a "threat" to his hunger.

Maybe. That would still make it a threat. My point is that a superpower is always a potential threat for anyone else. And look at my exact wording: "It was rather hard not to consider USSR a 'pertinent threat'..". I put the word consider there for a reason. But keep in mind that I am not Orwell and I'm not advocating his views. I simply stated that from what I've read it seems that Animal Farm was meant by Orwell as a fable against what he considered a threat but that the way the story is designed doesn't preclude it for being read as a satire of another (and very different) revolution. Sorry if I hurt your communists feelings in the process. But don't get hooked on the false ideas that I consider Orwell's view on USSR to be all-accurate and well-informed.

>Not a threat, never was a threat, never will be a threat.

That's not why I am discussing. Again, I'm talking about was Animal Farm was supposed to be and how it can be read, not about wether it is accurate or not. Don't be so upset Stalin-boy.

>Okay so you just don't really know history or political economy AT ALL, I see.

Enlighten me then. I'm serious, you see to be very much entitled to your opinion (which I was only partially arguing against as you can see) so I'd like to get some of your information.

Sage because we're getting off-topic and also because we are barely discussing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3823487]

>>3823474
kek

[Anonymous No.3823488]

>>3823476
You might want to check out Another View of Stalin. the author is an avowed antirevisionist M-L. At times he brushes aside the faults of the USSR too much or is too uncritical of the party line, but it's solid and deals directly with "the Stalin question", including specific little myths like Stalin supposedly abandoning his post at the beginning of WW2 etc.

[Anonymous No.3823501]

>>3823488

Yes, much to my shame I still haven´t read Marten's book, with all my academic load. Problem is, I can´t stop getting into arguments but the risk is high of getting cornered.

[Anonymous No.3823515]

>>3823488
>>3823501

Re-read my comment, sounded rude, it was not my intention! Again, thanks for the info anon, now I just have to read : )

[Anonymous No.3823521]

>>3823515
Didn't sound rude at all, you stupid faggot. : ) Happy reading

[Anonymous No.3823525]

>>3823103

>3823103
1000000

A Mass Murderer is posting on /lit/, look i just wrote a random number under him, that must make it so!

[Anonymous No.3823530]

>>3823488
>Search for your term
>Find this
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/index.htm
Fucking neat. Bookmarked. Shame it doesn't seem to provide easily downloaded ebooks though.

Once I finish McLellan's 'Marx: Life and Thought' I'll definitely be looking through the stuff on here.

I flirted with Marxism in my youth, it's gratify to explore it properly with the benefit of age 6 years later.

[Anonymous No.3823544]

>>3823530
>I flirted with Marxism in my youth

Weird, I was educated as a marxist, and I flirted with things non-marxist

[Anonymous No.3823548]

Does communism/marxism mean soviet union/stalin?

Does socialism/national socialism mean nazis/hitler?

Does capitalism mean the US?

[Anonymous No.3823557]

>>3823061
>idealism
Is this supposed to be a bad thing or are you kids just trying to make yourself seem "mature" and "enlightened"?

[Anonymous No.3823571]

>>3823544
I wasn't educated as anything politically, really. I can't remember when I first started considering politics, though I remember fixating on 'foreign policy' earlier than taking an interest in proper politics.
Neither of my parents are that political.

Over the course of about 7 years (starting at 14) I kind of went (I think) 'liberal' (UK), Marxist, Randroid and then democratic socialist where I've stayed at for three years.

My rediscovering of Marxism isn't changing my de facto politics much but I'm becoming much more class conscious.

[Anonymous No.3823573]

>>3821466
It's a good morality tale about power corrupting.

It's not a particularly good or complex book, and is really only useful to teach young readers the moral.

My favorite Orwell was 451.

[Anonymous No.3823580]

>>3823573
>power corrupting
Christian modernist bullshit.
None of the so called "leaders" (politicians. no true world leaders have existed for some time) of today know what true power is. Even Stalin and Hitler were just babies.

[Anonymous No.3823588]

>>3823580
What would you consider to be a true world leader? Augustus?

[Anonymous No.3823591]

>>3823588
Romans are the predecessors of the modern politician. Not true world leaders.

[Anonymous No.3823597]

>>3823591
then who the fuck would you consider a "non-baby"?
stop talking out of your ass

[Anonymous No.3823609]

>>3823597
Alexander the great or Napoleon.

Alexander being a higher rank than of Napoleon.

[Anonymous No.3823615]

>>3823571

The big issue here, I think, is precisely class consciousness, every reading you do about domestic policies is pretty much biased by it. I bet it is not as bad in the UK as it is in the US, but culturaly there is so much fog around marxism that it just can´t be thought seriously, it seems, and I think it comes to class consciousness and alienation.
I was "educated as a marxist" because my family is marxist, me grandfather being executed for it in the 70s, but my interest comes because of western philosophy tradition, the classics leading to Marx and what not.

[Anonymous No.3823617]

>>3823362
>hurr it's all about classes!

[Anonymous No.3823623]

>>3823609
Why? I'm honestly interested in your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.3823639]

>>3823557
In the philosophical sense, idealism just means putting mental conceptions before material conditions of reality. When you say someone is being idealist, it's just shorthand for "take a reality check dude, what you're saying right now is a product of your imagination"

It doesn't mean idealism in the sense that you believe strongly in ideals

[Anonymous No.3823643]

>>3823639
>dude
I don't surf.

[Anonymous No.3823763]

If any of you are interested there's a Marxism thread going on on /pol/.

boards.4chan.org/pol/res/15145121

[Anonymous No.3823999]

We can write an Animal Farm about any political regime. Would it still be popular?

>Old pig said, let's not make food for the farmers, let's make food ourselves and sell it on the market. Young pig said, let me show you how to make food though, because you guys are dumb. Now you make food for me. All animals own property, but some own more property than others.
>Old pig said, let's not serve the farmers, let's serve the great pig in the sky. Young pig said, let me tell you what the great pig wants you to do. Now you serve me. All animals are the great pig's creations, but some are more creations than others.
>Old pig said, let's not let the farmers tell us which threads are good and which are bad, let us sage and age them ourselves. Young pig said, let me moderate the board though to make sure things stay legal. Now I delete any thread that does not agree with me. All animals can self moderate, but some animals can self moderate more than others.

[Anonymous No.3824031]

>>3823999
I salute you, sir.

[Anonymous No.3824352]

>>3823999
You would have to change too much of the book for it to be a easy copy and paste job with how it is plotted out.

[Anonymous No.3824378]

>>3823380
>Antirevisionist
>The purges didn't happen

Christ, it's like being on /pol/

[Anonymous No.3824387]

>>3822478
Great.

[Anonymous No.3824413]

Animal Farm is a typical English squeamishness towards radical change made manifest. Why do you think the English political system is a tottering mess of institutions that have shambled on since the 17th century? England is an extremely reactionary country, afraid of the new and endlessly deferential toward the old - if change has to come in England, it has to come slowly, politely, gently, or else it will end in Oliver Cromwell. Orwell could never shake his nationality from his writing.

[Anonymous No.3824422]

>>3824413
>I haven't read 'Why I write'
>I havent even looked at Tory politics lately

[Anonymous No.3824509]

>>3824387
Upset, Limey?

[Anonymous No.3826026]

>>3823380
h-hey c-comrade