So they're threatening us with an new Animal Farm movie

 

I was innocently scrolling through social media when a trailer for an CG film starring animals started playing. My settings mute automatically so I just saw a few seconds of CG pigs smiling. Those pigs look creepy when they smile was my reaction, and then I moved on with my life.

A few days later I saw those creepy porcine smiles again, this time as part of a thread of comments denouncing the film, which is how I learnt that it was an Animal Farm movie, and that Seth Rogan voices the Napoleon character. Oh, joy.

Look, the film has not been released, it's scheduled for release on the 1st of May 2026, that's International Worker's Day, and from the bits shown in the trailer it looks to be a modern retelling of the dangers of capitalism. I don't particularly wish to watch it and I have no expectations for it, but I won't write it off before it comes out. Though I do have things to say about an Animal Farm but capitalist reading, which I will come back to later on.

 Before we move on, I have a question for you. Have you read Animal Farm? I'm not being cute, I think it's one of those things where the discourse/gossip that surrounds it is more well known and more famous than the story itself. And I think that's partly to blame for the majority of the confusion and abuse of that name. So, if you haven't read it, I would recommend you do so. It's quite a short read it's a novella and most versions don't include Orwell's preface making it even shorter. It's public domain in the UK and can be found online fairly easily, here's the first version I read many years ago. 

 No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. 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.

A brief summary,

 Our story is set on Manor Farm, a typical farm in the 1930s England, the Farmer Jones is lazy and drunk. The Animals are growing dissatisfied with his stewardship of the farm, eventually tensions explode and a revolt led by the pigs succeeds in overthrowing the hated Jones and the animal's find themselves in charge of the farm. Not knowing what to do now, the animals consent to letting the pigs take the vanguard position, and they administer the farm. The pigs promise equality and a new life free of exploitation, but work needs doing, so the other animals provide the muscle and work to the pigs plans. Overtime, the pigs gain and enjoy more privileges and their rule becomes far less popular, by manipulating language, fears and the use of force the pigs under their leader Napoleon from a dictatorship and in the end they use the wealth of the farm to parley a seat at the table with the human farmers. The quotation above comes from the final scene, where the pigs entertain a group of human farmers. It's not as iconic as "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" but it represents the same message and is key to the author's intent with the story. 

You may have been aware that Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution, and it is, although just knowing that fact without familiarity with the work will obscure the main point of the story.  Many readings of the book and its other film adaptations will focus on Napoleon being like Stalin and other events that have parallels with early soviet history and then deduce something along the lines of "Animal farm is an allegory about the dangers of revolution and how they eat their own" this might be what they got from it, but I don't see that in the story and from what I know of George Orwell. For starters, Jones is seen as a tyrant who needed to be overthrown, the problem is in the aftermath and how the pigs behave.

The other animals don't act like the pigs, many are shown to be devoted to the cause they work and often die for. Their problem is that they allowed the pigs to occupy positions of power over them and the pigs grew accustomed to the trappings of power and their own self-importance and corrupted themselves and their revolution. The pigs are the Bolsheviks here, you see. 

There is a sort of restoration theme in Animal Farm, but the return of the status quo is the crux of the depressing ending. You're not supposed to think it's good that the pigs act so much like their former masters that the animals can't distinguish between them any more.  

 

The pointlessness of an anti-capitalist animal farm

From the trailer the 2025 Animal Farm film casts its Napoleon as a tech bro capitalist, it's not the first time someone came along and wrote an anti-capitalist version of Animal Farm, there was an unofficial sequel where Snowball (a pig heavily coded as Leon Trotsky) returns from exile to the farm and leads it in a new business friendly way. Neither of these re-imaginings can escape a core problem, and that is that we already have a definitive attack on capitalism to George Orwell's Animal Farm. It's called Animal Farm, it was published in 1945 and was written by George Orwell.      

Going back to the quote, the reason that the animals can no longer distinguish between the human's and pigs is so damning of an ending is what both represent. The pigs represent the communist party, I don't know anyone who would dispute that, but what many seem to miss is that the humans in the story are the capitalists. They're allegories for the capitalists who rule the world, they take the eggs, and milk and meat etc. from the animals and sell them for a profit. That's an allegory for the capitalist system, the produce is the commodities produced by workers labour time and power. 

So, when the animals can't tell the difference between the two, Orwell is accusing Stalin and his party cronies of using the language and symbols of socialism to trick the population while he builds a capitalist economy. This is not a surprise, throughout the story the pigs use and exploit the other animals to make a profit, and it's their ability to control a restive farm and conduct good business that turns the humans who initially rejected the pigs as usurpers other to letting them take part in the wider community. 

That is a very simplified criticism of the Soviet Union, but one that is based on a wider criticism of capitalism. It's good that Jones is gone, and it's a tragedy that the new rulers continue to behave like him and represent the same cruel dynamic. The pigs are usurpers, but not because they dared to take Jones's rightful property, they usurped a genuine movement to end tyranny and exploitation. 

This gets overlooked all the time by liberal critics and deliberately ignored by the "communists" who comment on the work. I can understand the former, the phrase missing the forest for the trees springs to mind. The clear parallels to Stalin and the Soviet Union are so obvious that its wider message gets lost. It doesn't help that much of the intended audience has its own blinkers on, since Animal Farm is obviously the Soviet Union* which was different from the USA which we all know is capitalist, so the capitalist dimension is overshadowed. I think this is the result of buying into capitalist propaganda, the idea that capitalist economy is built on an abstract freedom and not the material class relationships of boss and workers. Workers in both the USA and USSR were alienated and controlled, they're worked on what those above them chose for them and in the manner decided for them, and the results of their work, the products and materials were sold off, and the profits went to the powerful. There are differences between a board of directors and a state planning agency, sure, but the foundations of the economy are the same. 

A film where Napoleon parties and drives a Tesla might be entertaining, I doubt it, but it is possible. However, it will always be redundant. We already had that story in 1945.

 

Appendix One: The 1954 film, aka the CIA movie

"You'll laugh and cry a little!" good to see lying has been a cornerstone of marketing for so long.

 

 Thought it's best to deal with this one while we're here. In 1954, just four years after the death of George Orwell, the British studio Halas and Bachelor released a full length animated adaption. The animation is excellent for 1954 and is arguably the first feature length animated film released in the United Kingdom. And aside from a few changes (we're getting to), is a faithful adaption of the story. But that's not why anyone talks about this film.

No, all that anyone talks about when the film comes up is the presence of the CIA. It's true, two executives who worked for the CIA bought the rights to the film from Orwell's widow then used Rochemont as a front who selected Halas and Bachelor to produce the film. This was unknown to everyone until historian Tony Shaw uncovered the financial connections. So, I think we have an excellent example of the damage propaganda can have on art. Even when it produces a technically impressive and moving work, the real purpose of it hangs over it.

Regarding those changes, the film's wiki entry helpfully lists them and some potential changes that were not made. A few that stand out, adding scenes where some animals who are content have no interest when learning of the revolution in Animal Farm, I get their intent, but the result is a short and succinct demonstration of what marxists call false consciousness. There were also animals in the novella who didn't see why they needed to fight Jones either, 

 Some of the animals talked of the duty of loyalty to Mr. Jones, whom they referred to as "Master," or made elementary remarks such as "Mr. Jones feeds us. If he were gone, we should starve to death." Others asked such questions as "Why should we care what happens after we are dead?" or "If this Rebellion is to happen anyway, what difference does it make whether we work for it or not?", and the pigs had great difficulty in making them see that this was contrary to the spirit of Animalism. The stupidest questions of all were asked by Mollie, the white mare. The very first question she asked Snowball was: "Will there still be sugar after the Rebellion?"

Another concerns Snowball being too good and the need to make him just as bad as Napoleon. Well, that mission failed Snowball is still seen as the good of the two pigs and his murder by the dogs reads as tragic. Another change due to pressure was the reduction of humans and the focusing on Jones as the evil one. 

But the big change concerns the ending. Orwell's novella ends with the animals broken, the film ends with the pigs being overthrown. I personally don't see an issue with the bad guys being overthrown, it's a change, but the novella's ending was the way it was because it was released in 1945 when Stalin stood triumphant. In 1954 there had been revolts, including East Germany the year before. To me the bit of the changed ending that is a problem is the replacement of the human visitors with other pigs. These pigs are clearly stand ins for the soviet sattelite states of East Germany, Bulgaria etc. This means that Napoleon hasn't been accepted by the wider capitalist world. But, to my great surprise the ending keeps the trigger point. It still keeps this bit.

 No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. 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.

They see the pigs acting like Jones the human and its that which drives them into a frenzy to overthrow their masters. So, the CIA funded a film based on a work where the villains are evil for adopting capitalist methods and despite wielding great influence kept that criticism in the film. Its not just in the ending either, throughout the film the pigs constantly trick, pressure and cajole the other animals into working so they can profit from their labours. Animal Farm is ruled by a brutal clique who spend other people's money on booze, clothes and automobiles, and this is somehow different to the USA how?

Again, I really think you should read the novella, the criticisms of capitalism are entwined within the crticism of Stalin.  

Oh and one final note on the changes, while reading the book Orwell Subverted:The CIA and the filming of Animal Farm, I came across the CIA's negative reactions to the first proposed uprising ending where the human guests are preserved.

 This dramatic reversal of the book’s downbeat conclusion notwith-
standing, the memo argued that, as scripted, the final sequence, which
included men and pigs, was ‘‘ambiguous at best’’ and ‘‘at worst’’ was an
‘‘endorsement of . . . anarchism.’’

So, there you have it, keeping the anti pig and human theming of the Novella is an endorsement of Anarchism.  

 Appendix Two: The other Animal Farm movie

 

Somehow this poster even more misleading than the 54 version

Did you know that there was another Animal Farm film? It released in 1999, and it uses the voices of Patrick Stewart for Napoleon and Kelsey Grammar for Snowball. It also uses some CG animation but mostly relies on animatronics, puppets and real animal stuntwork. It was also faithful to the Novella and as far as I can tell was not funded by any intelligence services. Oh and the pigs don't look creepy when they smile.

 It doesn't get brought up ever when Animal Farm is being discussed. I guess its marketing failed, its trailer and posters make it look like a Babe Big in the City knockoff. Its a shame really, its a strong adaption. Again the biggest change is the ending, some animal's after seeing the pigs and humans pal around to the point it is impossible to say which is which they run off and escape. Then years later the regime has crumbled and collapsed. I suspect that change was due to the film releasing in 1999 years after the soviet union crumbled in on itself and collapsed.

If you want a faithful adaption of Animal Farm this will probably remain the best version available.  

Taken together the Novella and the two films represent an interesting timeline, we have Stalinism triumphant (1945), in trouble (1954) and death through decay (1999).  

 

  *Which makes me wonder how younger readers react to it since they have no memory of the Soviet Union to base their thoughts on.

Anarĥiismo (A. Borovoj) - Anarchism

 

"No social ideal, from the point of view of anarchism, could be referred to as absolute in a sense that supposes it’s the crown of human wisdom, the end of social and ethical quest of man." Alexei Borovoj Anarchism, 1918.

Alexei Borovoi was a Russian Anarchist, teacher and writer. Born in 1875 he spent much of his life articulating an individualist anarchism and giving lectures on anarchist thought. During the Russian Revolution he remained active and was a founding member of the Unions of of Workers of Intellectual Labour, a union for doctors and teachers and the Union of Ideological Propaganda of Anarchism a group whose purpose was the spreading of Anarchist ideas. He edited both organisations newspapers.

The Bolsheviks shut both organisations down, Borovoi continued to teach until 1922 when he was stripped of his professorship and banned from teaching. In 1929 he was arrested and exiled to Vyaltka, he spent the last years of his life in minor clerical posts. He died in 1935. 

In his time Borovoi was a very popular figure in Russia, university students lodged a mass petition for an intellectual debate on Anarchism vs Marxism with Borovoi representing the Anarchists, while Bhukarin and Lunarchasky were to be his opposition. The debates never happened though as the Bolshevik central government cancelled them. Unfortunately in our present time and Anglocentric world Borovoi is an obscure figure, there are only scraps of information about him, the Esperanto wikipedia has more information than then the English language entry, and I can find just one short piece by him on the Anarchist library, Anarchism and Law, so I hope translation of this short piece (not to be confused with the book of the same name) will help correct that in a small way.

Anarĥiismo (A. Borovoj)

Anarchism by A. Borovoj.

 

Is there in the sphere of modern socio-politics and ideas an idea as indefinite, contradictory and at the same time exciting to all, as anarchism? 

Here, full of irresistible attraction, here full of terror and disgust, the synonym of perfect harmony and fraternal unity, the symbol of the destruction of faith and fratricidal infighting, the triumph of freedom and justice, the feast of unbridled passions and arbitrariness, anarchism stands as a great enigma, stirring by its name immense feats of human love and explosions of obscure [2] vile passions, all are called the same.

And anarchism, affirming freedom, fighting against any form of despotism, regardless of the mask it hides behind, cannot but rise up against the excessive distortions of it, against the identification of revolutionary creation with the destruction of faith, of anarchic rebellion with the abominable dance of savages. Where do these arbitrary contradictory understandings of anarchism come from?

1-e. No socio-political thought can fit neatly into ready-made, finished formulas. Life is so full, elastic, and versatile that no dogma can forge chains can forge chains to restrain freedom of expression for long. It elementally outgrows the most fearless inventions of the wise, it puts aside the experienced, the old, buries the laws and theories, disregarding their logical harmony and the perfection of their constructions.

2-e. Despite the general conviction, the socio-political vivid idea is not so much the fruit of abstract speculations, the truth obtained through "reason", as the object of belief, conditioned by the profound originality of an individual.

In every human being, and the richer the individuality, the more strongly it manifests itself as an ever-living tendency towards the acceptance and understanding of definite truths. It may be modified according to time and place, environment, fashion, but the psychophysical originality of the individuality is its main source. Not expressed in terms of logic, it stands behind external argumentation and it decides the matter.

 The citizen of modern cultural society can freely, handily, draw from the rich treasury of human thought. Various worldviews, hostile and close to each other, are equally presented with great brilliance and talent, and despite all this, in addition to the external, obvious for all reasons, there are the internal, inconsiderable, powerfully drawing us to the acceptance and confession of one truth and to the equally passionate denial of the other. Never before has one religious teaching, one philosophical system, one socio-political institution united all people. This is impossible and unnecessary. Namely, this absence in humanity of one faith is the best evidence of the multifaceted nature of human nature and at the same time - the hopelessness of the claims of an individual, party, class, state, nation, to say - the whole truth.

 3-e. Anarchism has not yet had historical experience. One can speak of the history of anarchist thought, of the history of anarchist groups, communities, and individual attempts, but it is premature to speak of the social experience of anarchism. Conservatism and liberalism, as forms of socio-political thought, have deep living roots.

 They were not born of the cabinet meditations of scientists, nor of the disputes of progressive circles, but of real life interests. From the stage of separate attempts they had long since passed into the form of practical experience, had defined the politics of classes, had more than once taken the destinies of nations into their own hands; in a word, they had a long and complicated history.

 In the last half of the 19th century we can already speak not only of socialist vision, but also of socialist practice. The theoretical demands of Socialism began to be embodied in the real politics of the proletariat. And now we already have extensive socialist experience, because under the banner of socialism the ranks of modern workers' parties are being founded.

 Anarchism was not yet a real policy.
Separate pages of the International, small circles, colonies of intellectuals and some facts from the history of the workers' and especially peasant movement, that is all that can be called a particularly anarchist experience. The traditional aversion to "organization" and "collective discipline" has slowed down anarchism from playing a significant role in the development of the workers' movement. Anarcho-syndicalism is the phenomenon of recent years and in the history of anarchism it has opened a completely new page.

 4-e. Finally, one must pay attention to the abnormality, both of anarchist thinking itself, and of anarchist behavior. The socio-political philosophy of liberalism and socialism is based on the experience of a defined legality. The birth and development of class consciousness for them are the results of defined historical premises.

 On the contrary, anarchism, despite the proclamations of its leaders - Bakunin, Kropotkin and others - has always been outside historicism, being in its sociological concepts a methodology inherited from the rationalist teachings about "natural man", "state of nature", "natural law". In its assertions, society did not have an independent existence; it is a mechanical aggregate of free, self-defining "individuals".

 Anarchism was not and until recently did not claim to be the philosophy of any class. It was a philosophy of the creatively self-defining individual. It knew no formulas that bound the individual, acknowledging for everyone the unrestricted right of criticism.

 Hence the boundless diversity of statements of particular shades, currents in anarchism or even of particular anarchists, which with difficulty allows us to establish at least general lines of the worldview common to all of them.
But as for the "rules" of conduct, in fact, up to now there have been and are absent.
These are the general causes that have slowed down and that still continue to slow down the recognition of the nature of anarchism and the establishment of its constitutional recognitions.

Alexei Borovi 1924. 

 

 

Anarĥiismo
De A. Borovoj [1]

Ĉu estas en la sfero de l’modernaj socie-politikaj kaj ideoj ideo tiom nedifinita, kontraŭdireca kaj samtempe ĉiujn emociiganta, kiel anarĥiismo ?
Jen plena de nekontraŭstarebla allogo, jen plena de teruro kaj abomeno, la sinonimo de l’perfekta harmonio kaj frata unuiĝo, la simbolo de fi-detruado kaj fratmortiga batalado, triumfo de libereco kaj justeco, festenado de senbridigitaj pasioj kaj arbitreco, la anarĥiismo staras kiel granda enigmo agitanta kaj per ĝia nomo oni samnomas grandegajn heroaĵojn de homamo kaj eksplodojn de obskuraj [2] malnoblaj pasioj.
Kaj anarĥiismo konfirmanta la liberecon, batalanta kontraŭ iu ajn formo de despotismo, sin ŝirmanta per iu ajn masko, ne povas ne ekstari kontraŭ troegaj kripligoj de ĝi, kontraŭ samsencigo de l’revolucia kreado kun fi-detruado, de l’anarĥia ribeleco kun abomenega dancado de sovaĝuloj.
De kio devenas tiuj arbitraj kontraŭdiraj komprenadoj de anarĥiismo ?
1-e. Ĉiu socie-politika penso ne enmetiĝas tutece en la pretajn, finitajn formulojn. La vivo estas tiel plena, elasta, diversflanka, ke neniuj dogmaj katenoj povas kunforĝi por-longe la liberecon de ĝiaj celadoj. Elementece ĝi superkreskas la plej maltimajn elpensaĵojn de l’saĝeguloj, ĝi demetas la travivitaĵon, la malnovan, entombigas la leĝojn kaj teoriojn, malatentante ilian logikan harmonieco kaj perfektecon de iliaj konstruoj.
2-e. Spite la ĝenerala konvinko, la socie-politika vividearo estas ne tiom la frukto de l’abstraktaj spekulativoj, la vero, akirita per « racio », kion la objekto de l’ kredo, kondiĉata de l’profunda originaleco de individuo.

En ĉiu hom-estaĵo, kaj ju pli riĉa estas individueco, per des pli granda forto tio montriĝas ĉiam vivas emiĝo al la akcepto kaj kompreno de l’difinitaj veroj. Ĝi povas esti modifata laŭ la tempo kaj loko, medio, modo, sed psikofizika originalec’ de l’ individueco, estas ĝia ĉefa fonto. Ne esprimata en la terminoj de l’ logiko ĝi staras post la ekstera argumentado kaj ĝi decidas la aferon.
La civitano de l’ kultura socio moderna povas libere, plenmane ĉerpi el la riĉegaj trezorujoj de l’homa penso. Diversaj mondkomprenoj, malamikaj kaj proksimaj unu de alia estas egale prezentitaj kun granda brilo kaj talento kaj malgraŭ ĉio-ĉi, krom la eksteraj, evidentaj por ĉiuj kaŭzoj, estas la internaj, neprikonsidereblaj, potence nin tirantaj al la akcepto kaj konfeso de unu vero kaj al la same pasia malkonfeso de l’alia. Ankoraŭ neniam, unu religia instruo, unu filozofia sistemo, unu socie-politika institucio kunigis ĉiujn homojn. Tio estas neebla kaj malbezona. Nome tiu-ĉi malesto en la homaro de unu kredo estas la plej bona atestilo de multfaceteco de l’homnaturo kaj kune -senespereco de l’pretendoj de individuo, partio, klaso, ŝtato, nacio, diri- la tutan veron.
3-e. Anarĥiismo ankoraŭ ne havis historian sperton. Oni povas paroli pri historio de l’anarĥia penso, pri historio de l’anarĥiaj grupoj, kolonioj, apartaj ekprovoj, sed pri socia sperto de anarĥiismo paroli estas antaŭtempe. La konservatismo kaj liberalismo, kiel formoj de l’socie-politika pensado, havas profundajn vivajn radikojn.
Ne kabineta meditado de scienculoj, ne disputoj de l’progresemaj rondoj ilin naskis, sed realaj vivinteresoj. El stado de l’apartaj ekprovoj ili jam delonge transiris en la formon de praktika spertado, difinis la politikon de klasoj, ne unufoje prenis en siajn manojn la sortojn de l’nacioj ; unuvorte havis longan implikitan historion.
En lasta duono de 19a jarcento ni jam povas paroli ne nur pri socialisma vididearo, sed ankaŭ pri socialisma praktiko. La teoriaj postulaĵoj de Socialismo komencis enkorpiĝi en la reala politiko de l’ proletariaro. Kaj nun ni jam havas grandan socialisman spertadon, ĉar sub flago de socialismo fondiĝas la vico de l’modernaj laboristaj partioj.
Anarĥiismo ankoraŭ ne estis reala politiko.
Apartaj paĝoj de Internacio, rondetoj, inteligentulaj kolonioj kaj iuj faktoj el la historio de laborista kaj precipe kamparana movado, jen ĉio, kion oni povas nomi precipe anarĥiisma spertado. La tradicia abomenado al la « organiziteco » kaj « kolektiva disciplino » malakcelis al la anarĥiismo ludi iom atentindan rolon en la disvolviĝo de laborista movado. La Anarĥii-sindikalismo estas la fenomeno de lastaj jaroj kaj en la historio de l’anarĥiismo ĝi malfermis tute novan paĝon.
4-e. Fine, oni devas atenti la malnormalecon, kiel de l’anarĥiista pensado mem, tiel de l’anarĥiista konduto. La socie-politika filozofio de l’liberalismo kaj socialismo baziĝas sur la konfeso de l’difinita laŭleĝeco. La naskiĝo kaj disvolviĝo de l’klaskonscio por ili estas rezultaĵoj de l’difinitaj historiaj premisoj.

Male, la anarĥiismo eĉ malgraŭ la proklamoj de ĝiaj gvidantoj -Bakunin, Kropotkin kaj aliaj- ĉiam estis ekster historiismo, estante en siaj sociologiaj konceptoj metodologia heredanto de l’racionalismaj instruoj pri « natura homo », « natura stato », « natura juro ». En ĝiaj asertoj la socio ne havis memstaran ekzistadon ; ĝi estas mekanika agregato de liberaj, sindifinantaj « individuoj ».
La anarĥiismo ne estis kaj ĝis lasta tempo ne pretendis esti la filozofio de iu klaso. Ĝi estis filozofio de l’kreece sindifinanta individuo. Ĝi ne sciis devigantajn la individuon formulojn, konfesante por ĉiu neniel limigitan rajton de kritiko.
Pro tio estas tiu senlima diverseco de l’deklaroj de apartaj nuancoj, fluoj en la anarfiiismo aŭ eĉ de apartaj anarfiiistoj, kiu kun la penego lasas starigi kvankam ĝeneralajn liniojn de l’komuna por ĉiuj ili mondpririgardo.
Sed koncerne la « regulojn » de l’konduto, fakte ĝis nun tiuj ne estis kaj malestas.
Jen la ĝeneralaj kaŭzoj malakcelintaj kaj kiuj ankoraŭ daŭras malakceli la ekkonon de l’naturo de anarĥiismo kaj starigon de ĝiaj konstituciaj rekonigiloj.

Tradukis el rusa lingo A. Pikilhavski (2333).
Sennacieca Revuo n° 4 (45) Januaro 1924, p. 9.