Author: Nicholas Cuevas

A new movement is on the rise in your town; one seeking to overthrow and disrupt the current establishment. You are reluctant to join but give in because others you know join because it is for a cause; however you are immediately told a specific person holds authority over this movement and all orders from them are to be carried out without question because what they do is for the people. In Dostovesky’s novel Demons, the Pyotr Stepanovich acts as both an unpredictable and dangerous leader of his movement but also poses as a unifier amongst the masses, therefore this supports Arent’s model of a single figure being indispensable to a totalitarian movement. Throughout the novel, Pyotr gains influence over those who join the movement, but Pyotr abuses his growing power making him a dangerous individual who often plots schemes and tricks others. He even goes as far as to plot assassinations but his leadership remains crucial to the movement. In Arendt’s book The Origins of Totalitarianism, she says a leader of a totalitarian movement draws authority from the movement and organization so in a sense, makes them an “agent” or “impersonator” of the masses. In today’s political climate, people and even politicians start movements for causes they are passionate about, making themselves self proclaimed leaders. But a presence of authority must be maintained in order to carry out the goals of these movements. 

When Nikolai returns to town, people gather around interested to see if the young noble has changed. Upon his return, Varvara asks Nikolai if Marya is his wife and he says yes which sparks discussion amongst those present. However, Pyotr steps in to explain the situation to everyone. In contrast to Pyotr, Lebyadkin fails at making the crowd understand the situation showing Pyotr’s social adeptness. This success to sway and (in Pyotr’s case) manipulate the crowd is key when it comes to controlling the masses. “The peculiar selflessness of the mass man appeared here as a yearning for anonymity, for being just a member and functioning only as a cog, for eerie transformation, in brief, which would wipe out the spurious identifications with specific types or predetermined functions within society.” (Arendt, 431) Here, Arendt is specifically talking about Hitler’s rise in popularity before the Nazi Regime was formed. Hitler was like any other German citizen after the first World War. What made him so popular with the masses was he resonated with a lot of other Germans along with his great skills as a speaker, similar to Pyotr. Lebyadkin had his opportunity to sway the crowd but Pyotr was far better with his words. You could say Pyotr was more charismatic and appealing which helped him win over the crowd. And this is the point Arendt is making. Arendt is mapping out the reason for Hitler’s success in swaying the people because he connected with them and was a great speaker. The same can be said for Pyotr’s rise in popularity. Pyotr was just another member of the movement like everyone else in the room, only he knew how to persuade everyone. Starting a totalitarian movement requires charisma / persuasion in order to be one with masses. Hitler’s and Pyotr’s success at this shows how crucial these skills are to form and lead a totalitarian movement.

In this week’s chapters for Demons, Stepan makes a statement that goes against the movement. Stepan saw this as an opportunity to speak his mind after his failed attempts and being overshadowed by his own son in the movement. Therefore, this relates to Solzhenitsyn’s accounts of the Gulag and how he has looked back on them as being a way to get his voice and experiences out despite the restrictions and obstacles.

“So many of my predecessors had not been able to finish writing, or to preserve what they had written, or to crawl or scramble to safety – but I had this good fortune: to thrust the first handful of truth through the open jaws of the iron gates before they slammed to, to stay shut for a long time to come.” (Solzhenitsyn. 451)

I’m sure a lot of people, like Solzhenitsyn, who were in the Gulag system were able to escape alive, but very few who wrote about their experiences did not survive. For Solzhenitsyn to be able to survive and retell his accounts of the Gulag is an incredible feat considering how Stalin’s Communist Regime would not allow for something like this to happen. I mean Solzhenitsyn was put in the Gulag for making a joke about Stalin in a letter he wrote. This relates to Stepan’s sudden outburst during the Fete, publicly criticizing the revolutionary movement led by Pyotr.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I have solved the whole mystery. The whole mystery of their effect lies – in their stupidity! (His eyes began to flash.) Yes, ladies and gentlemen, were it an intentional stupidity, counterfeited out of calculation – oh, that would even be a stroke of genius! But we must do them full justice: they have not counterfeited anything.” (Dostoevsky, 484)

In this scene, Stepan is publicly criticizing the manifesto that is being handed around during the fete. Stepan undermines the manifesto which means he is also explicitly criticizing the revolutionary movement. I think it is really interesting that some people in the crowd urge him to stop talking while others gather around to listen to what he has to say. Stepan did eventually get off stage but the fact that his words had intrigued others meant that he was able to get his opinions and message out, similar to Solzhenitsyn writing his accounts about the Gulag. Stepan being an active member in the movement already puts him in a precarious position. He is committed to this movement and any suspicion of unloyalty could potentially lead to death. So Stepan exclaiming his opinion is sort of an act of defiance against totalitarianism, much like how Solzhenitsyn’s book about his accounts in the Gulag is an act of defiance against totalitarianism and the prison camp system. Though I do wonder if Stepan really did it because he feels that the movement is going in the wrong direction or is it a response to Pyotr, his own son as an act of revenge for outing him to the public. It could be a mixture of both.

In The Gulag Archipelago, it is said that the function of the prison camps is to break down and corrupt the human spirit. However, one concept that survives within the prison camp system is religion. Not only that, but religion can also find ways to survive not just in the prison camp system (created by totalitarianism), but also in a totalitarian society itself. Therefore, we can see examples of religion surviving in times of totalitarianism in both Demons and the two films we watched in class, Ostrov and Seraphima’s Extraordinary Adventure.

“How could one not envy these people? Were circumstances more favorable for them? By no means! It is a well-known fact that the “nuns” were kept only with prostitutes and thieves at penalty camps. And yet who was there among religious believers whose soul was corrupted? They died–most certainly, but… they were not corrupted. And how can one explain that certain unstable people found faith right there in camp, that they were strengthened by it, and that they survived uncorrupted?” (Solzhenitsyn, 317) 

You can see how from this quote, these camps try to crush the spirit of those who are held captive there, especially those with a religious background. They put the nuns with prostitutes and thieves, people that completely go against their religion. They remain faithful which would ultimately lead to their death, but they were never corrupted by the system. They never tried to get ahead by stealing food from others or ratting out other prisoners to the guards just to get slightly ahead. They remained true to themselves. We see this faith persists in Demons in the Appendix.

“Do you believe in God?” Stravrogin suddenly blurted out. “I do.” “It is said that if you believe and tell a mountain to move, it will move… that’s rubbish, however. But, still, I’m curious: could you move a mountain or not?” “If God told me to, I could,” Tikhon said softly with restraint, again beginning to flower his eyes.” (Dostoevsky, 687)

This was in the original chapter 9 of the book, but it was removed. Nikolai goes to see Tikhon, a retired bishop, to confess his crime of sexually assaulting a girl. Even with the rise of this totalitarian movement that was in essence started by Nikolai and his ideologies, religion still persists even in the heart of totalitarianism. Religion offers reassurance and clarity to those who live in a time of uncertainty. And uncertainty is what totalitarianism feeds on. It is a tool to control the masses. When that uncertainty is undermined by religion, it threatens totalitarianism.

Like in the film Ostrov, Anatoli offers help to people who come from mainland Russia. One prominent example is when Anatoli tells a woman to find her long lost husband in France. She says that she can’t because the country wouldn’t allow her but she has faith and the love she has for her husband gives her the courage. And in Seraphima’s Extraordinary Adventure, you have Seraphima who holds on to memories of her religious past despite her father being killed for being a priest. Religious faith endures in times of hardship.

As we continue to read through Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, we start to see a growing bitterness Pyotr develops towards Nikolai because of his popularity and influence. Pyotr is greatly influenced by Nikolai’s ideologies and willingly acts upon them becoming the face of a radical movement. But even still, Nikolai manages to take the spotlight despite having no active involvement in the movement. Therefore, we can draw parallels between Pyotr and Nikolai’s relationship to how Father Iov interacts with father Anatoli in the film Ostrov.

“Pytor Stepanovich ran off, grinning. Generally, as far as I recall, he was somehow especially angry at that time and even allowed himself extremely impatient escapades with almost everyone. Strangely, everyone somehow forgave him. Generally, the opinion became that he should be looked upon somehow specially. I will observe that he was extremely angry about Nikolai Vsevolodovich’s duel. It caught him off guard; he even turned green when he was told. Perhaps his vanity suffered here: he learned of it only the next day, when everybody knew.” (Dostoevsky, 302)

This is the point in the novel where Pyotr starts to grow jealous and distant from Nikolai. Previously, Pyotr looked up to Nikolai and was his sole influence in starting this radical movement in their small town. Pyotr stepped up and even became the face of the movement exclaiming his ideologies trying to influence the masses. This did make him popular, but Nikolai’s popularity surpasses this. After Nikolai’s duel, he gained immense popularity once again amongst the people in town. After this incident, Pyotr became angry and bitter towards Nikolai, thinking that he is not deserving of this popularity when he has no active role in the movement he is leading. Pyotr is the one leading and should be viewed as such.

This is a direct parallel to how Father Iov views Father Anatoli in the film Ostrov. In the film, Anatoli portrays himself as an old man with a few screws loose but at the same time, he is a devout Chirstian and is very popular with people who come to visit him from mainland Russia. People believe him to be a spiritual healer and he takes it upon himself to fulfill this role due to his past sin of being forced to kill his captain. But similar to how Pyotr feels about Nikolai, Iov has these same feelings towards Anatoli. Iov has also devoted his life to Christianity but thinks himself to be more disciplined and has a more conventional approach to faith whereas Anatoli is seen as a crazy old man but he possesses spiritual powers which gain him popularity. You can see where this jealousy can grow when Iov does everything he can to be the most faithful and devout, but Anatoli pulls pranks and constantly sees people from the mainland. 

An interesting note about both Nikolai and Anatoli is that they are both viewed by others and mentally unwell, yet they both have immense popularity with the public. They are both seen as visionaries even though they might not want to be viewed as such.

There are instances in Dostoevsky’s novel Demons that show how movements can become totalitarian despite, therefore a big concept that Arendt has brought up in The Origins of Totalitarianism comes up in Demons. This concept is the distortion of reality and manipulating the masses.

“Every nation has its own idea of evil and good, and its own evil and good. When many nations start having common ideas of evil and good, then the nations die out and the very distinction between evil and good begins to fade and disappear. Reason has never been able to define evil and good, or even to separate evil from good, if only approximately; on the contrary, it has always confused them, shamefully and pitifully; and science has offered the solution of the fist.” (Dostoevsky, 251)

This quote reminded me of Arendt’s points of how totalitarian movements like the Nazi Regime that start my gathering support of the masses and defining, like what the novel said, “evil and good.” But once that movement has gathered enough traction and support, leaders of said movement can twist reality and blur the line between what is good and what is evil. Going back to what Arendt has said Nazi Regime and its influence on Germany, after Hitler was able to take power and become an influential figure, he started to spread the narrative of the Jewish population being an enemy within the country. “The most efficient fiction of Nazi propaganda was the story of Jewish world conspiracy. Concentration on antisemetic propaganda had been a common device of demagogues ever since the end of the nineteenth century, and was widespread in the Germany and Austria of the twenties.” (Arendt, 463) It’s also interesting too that these antisemetic ideologies were already existent prior to the Nazi Regimes so the definition of what is good and “evil” began to disappear during World War II. What the Nazis did to the Jewish population was deemed as “good” but the acts themselves were very evil which can cause this confusion that comes in Demons.

Another way of defining what is good and evil and distorting reality is during the Russian Revolution led by the Bolsheviks and how the Communist regime evolved into defining good and evil. Vladimir Lenin defined the enemy or the evil as the ruling elite that put most of Russia at a disadvantage economically. This resonated with a lot of people in Russia so he gathered support and took down the establishment. Then after Lenin, Stalin took over and what was a fight against the establishment for the benefit of the people became a fight against capitalism with the arrival of the Cold War. America was defined as the new enemy / evil and the fight against them was good. You can see how easy it is to change the minds of people into believing what is good and evil and when the distinction becomes too confusing, people just go along with it. That is why you have a lot of people not challenging what is defined as good and evil.

Demons alludes to a lot of historical events and figures, but it also touches on those who were left behind over time despite their contributions to communism. Therefore, Demons shed light on what happens when the original ideas and philosophies of communism become distorted when newer generations use them for personal gain.

In the historical background for the book, Dostoevsky wrote this book in response to the killing of someone wanting to leave a radical political group in Russia. And among this main reason, there is also the fact that revolutionaries who used the philosophies and ideas from their elders would eventually turn on those who taught them and inspired them. This is due to the nature of self interest that arises from totalitarian movements. A quote I want to focus on from the novel revolves around our main character meeting one of their favorite authors. 

“I met Karmazinov, the “great writer”, as Liputin styled him. I had been reading Karmazinov since childhood. His novellas and stories were known to the whole of the previous generation and even to ours; as for me, I reveled in them; they were the delight of my adolescence and youth. Later I grew somewhat cold to his pen; the tendentious novellas he had been writing lately I liked less than his first, original creations, in which there was so much ingenious poetry; and his most recent works I even did not like at all.” (Dostoevsky, 84)

This exactly alludes to how former philosophies and philosophers of communism / socialism have been left behind. Yes they are still studied to this day but history has taught us that totalitarian movements were rooted in those philosophies but over time became corrupted by self interest and personal gain. Like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who created the philosophy of Socialism. Lenin and eventually Stalin both based their visions of Russia on socialism which created Communism, but the amount of bloodshed that resulted from their movements did not adhere to Marx’s and Engels’ philosophy. 

And going back to a previous reading of ours Animal Farm, where Major represents the original philosophy or the elder as well. He preaches his philosophy and wisdom and hopes that in the future those who absorb his wisdom (Snowball and Napoleon) can build a better society based on it. In a way, Snowball is the one who wanted to fully realize Major’s vision of Animal Farm. He had no self interest and made decisions based on what was best for everyone. Napoleon on the other hand was different and was driven more by self interest which led to the bloodshed of his own on Animal Farm. This is an exact parallel to Lenin’s and Stalin’s movements in Russia which were originally based on Marx’s and Engels’ philosophies. But overtime, they became distorted because of personal gain. Many people died because of it including those who were for the regime. A betrayal amongst their own, just like what Dostoevsky is writing about. “If you are not with me, then you are against me.” (Anakin Skywalker, Revenge of the Sith, 2005)

Nicholas Cuevas

Professor Paul Siewers

English Literary Studies 245

10/15/2025

Ambitions of Totalitarianism

Your country has successfully gained freedom from its oppressors and you are now under a hopeful and optimistic form of leadership; a better future for all. However, over time you slowly witness the changes of your leadership and you begin to suffer the consequences of this change, now questioning if things returned to the way they were, or worse. Animal Farm, written  by George Orwell, is a novel that offers a reflection of failed totalitarian regimes such as German Nazism and Russian Communism by telling the story of a society of animals rising above its oppressors to slowly reverting back to the world they once lived in, therefore proving Arendt’s point of totalitarian states never becoming fully realized and such a society being too ambitious. This essay will analyze three different eras of Animal Farm’s narrative: Major’s unification, Snowball and Napoleon’s golden age, and Napoleon’s rule; and dive into the evolution of Animal Farm’s leadership and how its ambitions would become the downfall of its society. To support my analysis, I will draw historical references and points made from both The Black of Communism and The Origins of Totalitarianism to create parallels to Animal Farm on how totalitarian societies start but ultimately fail.

In a time of oppression, fear, and unknowing, Major was an animal of great wisdom and gifted his wisdom to others who lived on Mr. Jones’ farm. This gave Major the position of a great unifier amongst the animals, who even after his death his ideologies remained cemented in the minds of all animals. “And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter, No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interest of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.” (Orwell, 10) This is the moment Major reached all the minds and hearts of every animal living on the farm. Having lived on this farm for 14 years and witnessing the struggles of everyday life, he relates to every animal that has lived on there. He understands the oppression these animals witness day to day, the weakness and helplessness imposed on these animals by Mr. Jones. It is this time of desperation that Major spoke to the animals who are looking for a sliver of hope for the future, that maybe, just maybe their lives could change for the better. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt calls back to Hitler’s massive popularity during his rise to power in Germany, and this is a direct parallel to Major’s rise in influence on the farm. “In the early years of his career, when a restoration of the European status quo was still the most serious threat to the ambitions of the mob, Hitler appealed almost exclusively to these sentiments of the front generation. The peculiar selflessness of the mass man appeared here as yearning for anonymity, for being just a number and functioning only as a cog, for every transformation, in brief, which would wipe out the spurious identifications with specific types or predetermined functions within society.” (Arendt, 431) A little bit of historical background, after the end of World War I, Germany’s defeat left the country powerless. In the eyes of German citizens, the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to take responsibility for the war resulting in territories being lost and massive amounts of reparations to be made out to other countries. On top of that, Germany was left with a crippled economy thus furthering sentiment against European countries that fought against them. Hitler was able to unify and gain support from the German people who had already existing sentiment from after the war, especially from those who fought on the front lines during the war. Hitler himself was able to relate to these masses because he was also a soldier on the frontlines during World War I. He has a shared experience with the masses which makes him someone people can relate to. Similar to Major who can relate and understand with the masses.

Hitler also envisioned a stronger Germany, one that rivals what the country was during the first world war. A country with not only a strong economy, but a strong military. Major also had a vision for the farm, one that was hopeful and optimistic. “Is it not crystal clear, comrades, that all the evils of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free. What then must we do? Why work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race!” (Orwell, 9) Using this promise, this vision of a better future furthered Major’s influence on the masses very similar to Hitler. Hope of liberation from what both viewed as oppressors was a shared idea amongst the masses. And the use of ideologies is a very powerful tool when controlling the masses in a totalitarian society. “The device both totalitarian rulers used to transform their respective ideologies into weapons with with each of their subjects could force himself to into step with the terror movement was deceptively simple and inconspicuous; they took them dead seriously, took pride the one in his supreme gift for ‘ice cold reasoning’ (Hitler) and the other in the ‘merciless of his dialectics,’ and proceeded to drive ideological implications into extremes of logical consistency which, to the onlooker, looked preposterously ‘primitive’ and absurd: a  ‘dying class’ consisted of people condemned to death; races that are ‘unfit to live’ were to be exterminated.” (Arendt, 619) In a way, Major also weaponsized his ideologies as it did give way to the first battle of Animal Farm (which resulted in the farm animals’ victory). Major was insistent on the unification of all farm animals, proclaiming that each and everyone of them is equal. But he also drove another aspect of his ideology, that man is an evil upon the world and that man will always be the enemy. Major encouraged rebellion amongst the farm animals to take control of the evils of man. This can be seen as a parallel to Hitler’s anti-semetic ideologies during World War II. Similar to Major, Hitler clearly defined a certain race that he viewed as a poison to Nazi Germany which led many of his followers to accept his ideologies, turning them into truth. Both Major and Hitler singled out a particular race as a means of uniting the masses and gaining influence. However, Major’s reasons were more justified as it meant the animals could be liberated from the clear and present evils the humans have put on the farm animals. Hitler’s ideologies were surrounded by false narratives of the Jewish population making them seem unfavorable and a hindrance to Germany’s goal to power. It was strictly a way to justify racial prejudice. The ideologies both serve the same function of unification but the execution and reasoning behind them are very different. 

Now that your country has been liberated, a new form of leadership now governs over you and the future looks promising.This new leadership brings in an abundance of food and materials, but only time will tell if this golden age can last.. This is what the animals on Animal Farm experienced after the first battle and went under the leadership of Snowball and Napoleon. Following in the footsteps of Major (who passed away before the first battle of Animal Farm) Snowball and Napoleon were able to lead a great totalitarian state, and to further this goal meant to bring forth the vision of Major, all animals are equal. When Snowball and Napoleon took over leadership of Animal Far, they created 7 commandments. These commandments are as follows: “1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy, 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend, 3. No animal shall wear clothes, 4. No animal shall sleep in a bed, 5. No animal shall drink alcohol, 6. No animal shall kill another animal, 7. All animals are equal.” (Orwell, 24) There is a huge emphasis on creating equality amongst the various animals on the farm, and this means that the distinction between animals is to be dismantled. This relates to Arendt’s points about a classless society, this being a key part in forming a totalitarian / communist state. “The breakdown of the class system meant automatically the breakdown of the party system, chiefly because these parties, being interest parties, could no longer represent class interests. Their continuance was of some importance to the members of former classes who hoped against hope to regain their old social status and who stuck together not because they had common interests any longer but because they hoped to restore them.” (Arendt, 412) This is in direct relation to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia which sought to bring an end to the ruling class system. “In regions held by the Bolsheviks it was the “class struggle” against the “aristocrats”, the bourgeoisie, and socially undesirable elements, the hunt for all non-Bolshevik militants from opposing parties, and the putting down of workers’ strikes, of mutinies in the less secure elements of the Red Army, and of peasant revolts.” (Werth, 82) After the first World War (and very similar to Germany), many people living in Russia lived in poverty while the current monarchy led by Tzar Nicholas II along with other aristocrats still lived their lives in luxury. Seeing this system of classes as not being in favor of the large population of Russians living in poverty, Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution against the monarchy and the ruling elite to destroy this system of classes. The Bolshevik’s slogan “Peace, Land, and Bread” resonated with the masses leading them to be in favor of the destruction of the class system. This breaking down of the class systems in both Animal Farm and the Bolshevik revolution is in essence what Communist stands for, equality amongst the masses. And similar to Napoleon and Snowball with Lenin, they all served as the forerunners for their totalitarian movements. “Totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals. Compared with all other parties, and movements, their most conspicuous external characteristic is their demand for total, unrestricted, unconditional, and unalterable loyalty of the individual member.” (Arendt, 423) Napoleon and Snowball have already successfully gathered support from the farm animals due to their isolation prior to the first battle. Each individual animal was alone and really helpless to the situation they were in making them susceptible to Major’s idea of rebellion. After his death, Snowball and Napoleon took it upon themselves to control the animals as they were already isolated and fearful. After the victory of the first battle, there was a huge relief for the first time as liberation is now reality. Now rules were set in place despite this new freedom, but they acted more as the foundations to an equal society amongst the animals. The system of classes is destroyed and equality is widespread not only amongst the animals but stretches to leadership as well. However, this drive for equality would ultimately lead to the downfall of Animal Farm’s original ambitions of being a totalitarian state. Keeping equality sounds beneficial to all in theory, but personal and ulterior motives get in the way of this. As we see transition into this next era of Animal Farm, disagreements amongst the leaders take a drastic turn as Napoleon seizes control over Animal Farm, exiling Snowball in the process. With nothing in his way to stop his vision of Animal Farm, Napoleon now stands as an authoritative figure. Whatever he demands gets done. You do not question Napoleon’s leadership. Your duty to him is also extended to your duty to Animal Farm.

A new form of leadership has taken over and you are told that everything that has been accomplished in the past is built on lies and deception and that you must only look forward and do your duty to animal farm. You begin to notice changes and life is slowly reverting back to how you once lived when humans were around, but you remain hopeful but also cannot ignore to question if things will really get better. At this point in Animal Farm, Napoleon has taken full control. He leads with an iron fist and the animals are confused, scared, and unsure. What they knew and hoped about this new society has now been flipped upside down. All they are told to do now is work for the benefit of Animal Farm when in reality it meant for the benefit of Napoleon. The animals are being worked long hours with food shortages happening more often than they used to. On top of all this uncertainty, Napoleon raises concerns about feelings of dissent towards his authority. This would result in Animal Farm’s horrific mass executions. “They were all slain on the spot. And so the tale of confessions and executions went on until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon’s feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown there since the expulsion of Jones.” (Orwell, 84) This is a direct parallel to the approaches taken by Communist regimes in Russia. “The nature of these crimes was defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which identified three major offenses: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. An examination of all the crimes committed by Leninist / Stalinist regime, and in the Communist world as a whole, reveals crimes that fit into each of these three categories.” (Courtois, 5) To be more specific about these crimes and especially the crimes against humanity, the revolutions led by Lenin and by Stalin carried out mass arrests and mass executions amongst not only those who they were originally fighting against, but also against the very people they gathered support from. There have been reports of mass executions being carried out by these regimes and this is a very similar picture to Napoleon’s mass execution on Animal Farm. And an interesting detail about these executions carried out by Napoleon is that it is a sight that the animals have not seen since Mr. Jones was in charge of the farm. “In the old days there had often been scenes of bloodshed equally terrible, but it seemed to all of them that it was far worse now that it was happening to themselves. Since Jones had left the farm, until today, no animal had killed another animal. Not even a rat had been killed.” (Orwell, 85) This is really significant because the animals are starting to recognize that the society they once fought to get rid of is slowly coming back. They are reinstating the system of classes that was once destroyed after the revolution, but Napoleon has brought it back. And this brings up a point Arendt has made about this kind of reversion and how a totalitarian state is too ambitious for a country. “The point is that in all these smaller European countries nontotalitarian dictatorships were preceded by totalitarian movements, so that it appeared totalitarianism was too ambitious an aim, that although it had served well enough to organize the masses until the movement seized power, the absolute size of the country then forced the would-be totalitarian ruler of masses into the more familiar patterns of class or party dictatorship.” (Arendt, 405) This perfectly describes Animal Farm’s beginnings of being a totalitarian movement to ultimately reverting back to the society they once were. Major was a great unifier and using his wisdom, Napoleon and Snowball organized the masses and took control, but Napoleon seized total control and reinstated a system of classes that the animals were already too familiar with during the time of Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones along with the other humans who worked on the farm were the ruling and oppressing class. Now Napoleon has taken the place of Mr. Jones and on top of that, the other pigs on the farm are taking their place alongside Napoleon in the ruling class. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” (Orwell, 141) Animal Farm has come full circle from humble beginnings about being liberated from the tyranny of man, only to find themselves in the same position they were only this time, the condition seems much worse. And to top it all off, this is a betrayal done by Napoleon who drove the distinction between humans and animals, only to become like his human oppressors in the end.

Throughout history, we have seen many totalitarian movements play out with methods of unifying the masses and sharing ideologies that become truth over time. However, unification can only go so far as slowly but surely, the old form of government begins to resurface under a new face, just like Napoleon. He fought for the liberation of Animal Farm only for him to become its oppressor. Even in today’s world, there are world leaders that can be classified as oppressors. Whether it be through religious oppression, racial oppression, political oppression, etc., it is there. And countries intertwine these oppressions with their totalitarian movements, but a true totalitarian state has never been fully reached. Arendt has given us the recipe for true totalitarianism, but the recipe only goes so far. At some point, the creation of the totalitarian state fully rests upon the ruling Party, and the ruling Party always fails to reach it. And so this begs the question, “Is human nature the biggest obstacle to totalitarianism?” Because like Alexandr Solzhenitsyn in his address at Harvard, we always want more and want to consume more.

Works Cited

• Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Signet Classic, 1946
• Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Penguin Classics, 2017
• Courtois, Stéphane, and Mark Kramer. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 2004. 

A quote I want to focus on from The Origins of Totalitarianism is, “What the masses refuse to recognize is the fortuitousness that pervades reality. They are predisposed to all ideologies because they explain facts as mere examples of laws and eliminate coincidences by inventing an all-embracing omnipotence which is supposed to be at the root of every accident. Totalitarian propaganda thrives on this escape from reality into fiction, from coincidence into consistency.” (Arendt, 460) 

I feel like this quote applies to a lot of areas in 1984, but I want to focus on a specific quote coming from the Book of Goldstein that Winston read. “A Party member is expected  to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party”. (Orwell, 211)

Everyone who lived under the Party’s control in 1984 cannot, or more importantly, is not allowed to think for themselves. The reality they are provided is one fabricated by the Party itself, despite it being fictitious. And a lot of it is really about fear mongering. Similarly to how the Nazis would use fear mongering as a way to distort reality. One way this fear mongering to create a reality centers around race. In 1984, there is the ongoing war between the Party and Eurasia. The Party constantly reaffirms the narrative of Eurasian citizens as devils and makes the distinction of them being the “other”. Like how earlier in the book, Winston describes a mongolian looking man being paraded around in a cage and people shouting at him, full of hatred. This can be a parallel to the development of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany during World War II. Arendt mentions how Nazis created false narratives about Jewish citizens residing in Germany.  One interesting point that was made by Arendt is that Party leaders create these narratives not really for any economic benefit or benefit of the citizens, they do it merely because it benefits them by creating a shared ideology which in turn, makes it easier to control and remain in power.

Another demonstration of this distortion of reality is when O’Brien is interrogating Winston after he had been arrested by the thought police. Winston cannot fathom the fact that 2 plus 2 equals because it has been rewritten that 2 plus 2 equals 5. Same can be said for how Newspeak works in The Principles of Newspeak chapter. Combinations of words have their meanings skewed as a way of preventing any thought about what the meaning might actually mean. And a more extreme example would be when Julia and Winston discuss the recent bombings and how the Party says it was done by Eurasia, but who is to say that it wasn’t the Party themselves that launched those bombs on its own citizens. So to put it all together, those in power have the ability to skew reality in their favor, and the masses accept this fictitious reality making it reality. 

Enthymeme Thesis:

Animal Farm is a great reflection on history’s attempts at creating a totalitarian society. Therefore, when I say attempts, Animal Farm is a prime example of how societies can come relatively close to totalitarianism, but never fully reach it because it is too ambitious. 

Outline:

In the first paragraph, I will be talking about chapters 1 and 2 of Animal Farm. These chapters are relatively short so I decided it would be best to include passages from both because they contain a lot of important details. These chapters specifically relate to the era where Major has a great influence on the farm, thus becoming this great unifier. I will relate this to Chapter 10 of Origins of Totalitarianism where it specifically talks about how totalitarianism can become this great unifier amongst individuals.

In the second paragraph, I will be talking about another two short chapters, chapters 5 and 6. These chapters are important because they mark the era in which Snowball and Napoleon governed the farm, but it also marks the beginning of Napoleon’s reign after he exiled Snowball for interfering with his vision for Animal Farm. I will relate this to the introduction of The Black Book of Communism on how such revolutions like this start and what the motives are. I will also go back to Chapter 10 of Origins of Totalitarianism and draw parallels between the beginning of Napoleon’s rule and the tools needed to reach a state of totalitarianism.

The final paragraph will touch on chapters 7 and 8, the height of Napoleon’s rule. At this point in the book, Napoleon has taken over all authority, and the farm animals remaining still show unwavering loyalty to him. This means I will touch on Chapter 4 of The Black Book of Communism and again on Chapter 10 of Origins of Totalitarianism with both discussing the tactics and basically the recipe to create a totalitarian society, but that became too ambitious at this point.

The Origins of Totalitarianism offers historical insight about regimes that use totalitarianism as a tool to achieve power. 1984 offers a fictional and dramatized version of how a regime successfully takes power. The Origins of Totalitarianism talks about real life events, but 1984 book builds off of true historical events. Therefore, there are some similarities we can draw from the real and the fiction, and specifically around the idea of a surveillance state.

“The deadly danger of ‘invisible government’ to the institutions of ‘visible government’ has often been pointed out; what is perhaps less well known is the intimate traditional connection between imperialist politics and rule by ‘invisible government’ and secret agents.” (Arendt, xxv) The use of spies or in totalitarian regimes is a common theme throughout history. In order for a party to maintain stability or to be more specific, power, the citizens must be kept in line. The Soviet had their KGB spies. They performed many duties and amongst one of them was to monitor citizens and keep the internal security of Russia stable. This is a way of keeping the power to a party away from the public eye thus rendering it ‘invisible’. Now there is another way of keeping order that is more ‘visible’. An example The Origins of Totalitarianism brings up are the SS Soldiers of Nazi Germany during World War II. SS Soldiers acted as a police force to keep citizens in line and to eliminate anyone that was not deemed loyal to the Nazi Party. This example is more visible and to an extent more extreme. Public executions would be carried out by the SS as a way of directly showing what happens to those who are unloyal. Now this is very different to how the KGB responds to unloyal citizens with actions being done in private, away from the public eye. However, the main point is the consequences of not being loyal are clear and present in totalitarianism. There is a constant surveillance whether it be done in secret or out for the public to see, the presence is still there.

Now I want to shift over into 1984 because both forms of surveillance are present in this book. “There were no telescreens, of course, but there was always the danger of concealed microphones by which your voice might be picked up and recognized (…) but sometimes there were patrols hanging about the railway stations…”. (Orwell, 117) On top of there being hidden devices for surveillance, there is also the threat of patrols by what I assume are the Thought Police. The Party utilizes both ‘invisible’ and ‘visible’ forms of surveillance to keep citizens in line. And they survey something that sounds impossible to us and that is ‘thought’. There is a reason they are called the Thought Police because they respond to thought crimes which in the world of 1984 is viewed as the worst kind of crime. It is a crime that goes against all thoughts that might go against The Party. 1984 portrays a true surveillance state where aspects of everyday life, even thought, are surveyed. The Soviet Union and Nazi Party could only do so much to survey its citizens, but The Party succeeds at this using totalitarianism.