Let’s say you are 100% correct, how does that matter in the regards of how you have to understand animal farm as a text?
I think we would be off-road quite a bit here and I am not interested in that.
Something that you might want to consider when evaluating people at any given time is their environment, how it impacted them and in case of idealisms, what does it mean for the possible success of it. I am specifically not claiming it is the case, but e.g. Orwell could felt threatened by his environment, both personally and his believes. Stalin and his supporters could meant for him to possible death of the ideals that he hold because from his pov, it was a perversion of his ideals. At the same time, he didn’t want to become a victim of the liberal capitalist. So from his pov, distracting the capitalists by destroying the perversion of his believes, might sounded to him like the best way of action for his ideals and himself, which was worth protecting even in a strictly idealogical perspective, as he had a loud voice for the movement. I don’t claim that this is the case, I am just saying that you could make sense of it without making him a “both sides guy”. This is not an invitation of discussion but of consideration when evaluating people from a different time.
Let’s say you are 100% correct, how does that matter in the regards of how you have to understand animal farm as a text?
I think we would be off-road quite a bit here and I am not interested in that.
Something that you might want to consider when evaluating people at any given time is their environment, how it impacted them and in case of idealisms, what does it mean for the possible success of it. I am specifically not claiming it is the case, but e.g. Orwell could felt threatened by his environment, both personally and his believes. Stalin and his supporters could meant for him to possible death of the ideals that he hold because from his pov, it was a perversion of his ideals. At the same time, he didn’t want to become a victim of the liberal capitalist. So from his pov, distracting the capitalists by destroying the perversion of his believes, might sounded to him like the best way of action for his ideals and himself, which was worth protecting even in a strictly idealogical perspective, as he had a loud voice for the movement. I don’t claim that this is the case, I am just saying that you could make sense of it without making him a “both sides guy”. This is not an invitation of discussion but of consideration when evaluating people from a different time.