![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Animal-Farm-film-poster.jpeg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>Richard M. Salsman, an economist and visiting assistant professor of political economy at Duke University, goes deeper than most other writers in contextualizing Andy Serkis\u2019 widely panned animated film version.<\/p>\nWith disturbing clarity, Salsman explains how Orwell\u2019s evolving views led him to reverse his initial conception of Animal Farm<\/i> as a critique of capitalism – but also how the British democratic socialist remained faithful to some of his deepest underlying assumptions.<\/p>\n
This is a powerfully illuminating review and essay<\/a> that deserves to be read in full at The Daily Economy,<\/i> a publication of the American Institute for Economic Research.<\/p>\n But I also want to highlight some of Salman\u2019s key insights, because they are so relevant to the themes and world view that shape the Prometheus Awards.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Salsman begins by making a point common to most reviews:<\/p>\n \u201cThis movie recklessly inverts<\/a> Orwell\u2019s original theme even beyond the public relations billing. Like his more famous, later work \u2014 the novel 1984<\/i> (which appeared in 1948) \u2014 Animal Farm<\/i> is anti-authoritarian. It vilifies not capitalists, but communists. This movie effectively reverses Orwell\u2019s moral framework and vilifies not communists (or even collectivists) but capitalists,\u201d Salsman writes.<\/p>\n A DEEPER CRITIQUE<\/strong><\/p>\n But Salsman\u2019s knowledge of history and economics allows him to go deeper in his critique than any other review that I\u2019ve read – and I’ve read quite a few.<\/p>\n What makes this review worth highlighting on the Prometheus Blog are the things I learned from Salsman that I hadn\u2019t previously known about Orwell, one of my favorite writers and a major influence on my thinking – especially his seminal essay on “Politics and the English Language.”<\/p>\n In my view, that recognition arguably was overdue, given the mythic and enduring power of Orwell\u2019s animal fable.<\/p>\n Salsman\u2019s review helps explain why:<\/p>\n \u2018In his essay for the Times of London in 2023 \u2014 \u201cAnimal Farm is Still Horribly Relevant Today<\/a>\u201d \u2014 A.N. Wilson described the novella as an \u201cincomparable masterpiece\u201d that still \u201cresonates today\u201d and \u201cnot just as a terrible indictment of left-wing idealism and Communist tyranny\u201d \u2014 as it illustrates \u2018exactly what Lenin, and then Stalin, did to the population of the USSR\u2019 at the beginning of the last century \u2014 but because like many people still today, the characters exhibit \u2018a pathetic weakness to believe political mantras.\u2019 Again, it\u2019s an obvious indictment of socialism, not capitalism,\u201d Salsman writes.<\/p>\n HOW ORWELL’S THINKING EVOLVED<\/strong><\/p>\n Salsman then explains how Orwell\u2019s life and the evolution of his thinking led him to write Animal Farm.<\/i><\/p>\n \u201cIn 1998 (and a few times thereafter), Venezuelan voters elected democratic socialists and before long, also got tyranny. They still suffer it. What would Orwell say about that? Probably something close to what\u2019s now said by the Democratic Socialists of America: Venezuela isn\u2019t \u2018genuine\u2019 socialism. As New York City mayor and democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani has said, an ideal, \u2018genuine\u2019 socialism remains the goal, such that America must \u2018replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.\u2019 Orwell warned of the \u2018excesses\u2019 of collectivism, but being socialist surely undermined his message.\u201d<\/p>\n A CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM?<\/strong><\/p>\n Surprisingly, Orwell conceived the story initially as a critique of capitalism.<\/p>\n \u201cReturning to Orwell\u2019s preface to the 1947 Ukrainian edition<\/a> of Animal Farm, we learn that he did, in fact, initially envision the novella as a parable about the evils of capitalism. He recalls that the \u2018details of the story did not come to me for some time, until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength, we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.\u2019<\/p>\n Given Orwell\u2019s intellectual coming of age, it\u2019s fascinating to realize how his growing understanding of the evils of Soviet communism led him to change his mind – and change the focus of the parable.<\/p>\n \u201cHow then did Animal Farm<\/em> become instead a parable not about capitalist \u201cexploitation\u201d but about socialism gone awry? As mentioned, Orwell says the novella\u2019s episodes were taken from the Russian Revolution and its disastrous aftermath. \u2018Up to 1930, I did not look upon myself as a Socialist,\u2019 he recounts, as he had \u2018no clearly defined political views.\u2019 He says he \u201cbecame pro-Socialist more out of disgust with the way the poorer section of the industrial workers were oppressed and neglected than out of any theoretical admiration for a planned society.\u201d<\/p>\n Although Orwell admirably recognized and condemned Stalin\u2019s \u201cgruesome, murderous\u201d purges at a time when most leftists were in denial of it or worse, excused it, he remained a democratic socialist until he died at 50 from tuberculosis.<\/p>\n Salsman explains:<\/p>\n \u201cTo experience all this was a valuable object lesson,\u201d (Orwell) recalled (in the 1947 preface<\/a>), for \u201cit taught me how easily totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people in democratic countries. I saw innocent people being thrown into prison merely because they were suspected of unorthodoxy.\u201d \u201cI understood, more clearly than ever, the negative influence of the Soviet myth upon the Western Socialist movement.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNotice how he refused to critique socialism per se,\u201d Salsman writes.<\/p>\n \u201cHe insisted that its authoritarian versions should not be counted as genuine versions. Socialists have made this unsubstantiated assertion repeatedly since 1917. For some odd reason, Orwell didn\u2019t consider such brazen, defensive, apologetic whitewashing as part of what he labeled \u201ctotalitarian propaganda to control opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n Salsman\u2019s conclusion\u00a0 <\/span>may well seem disillusioning and disturbing to libertarian fans of Orwell, but seems valid, well-documented and rooted in both his thinking and his words at the time:<\/p>\n \u201cIt may be said that Orwell\u2019s two main books weren\u2019t really warnings about the dangers of socialism but rather attempts to salvage its terrible reputation, which he somehow presumed was unearned,\u201d Saltsman writes.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the 1930s, per Orwell, \u2018it was of the utmost importance to me that people in western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the U.S.S.R. was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s fair to conclude,\u201d Salsman writes, \u201cthat Orwell\u2019s self-admitted motivation for writing his two anti-authoritarian books in 1945 and 1948 was a worry that socialism wouldn\u2019t advance in his native Britain, where he lived from 1928 onward, as long as Stalin\u2019s Soviet Union was seen as the role model.\u201d<\/p>\n Salsman then returns to the animated film and Serkis\u2019 defense of it, in an interview with Reason<\/em> magazine.<\/p>\n \u201cSerkis insists that his version\u2019s theme isn\u2019t different from the original novella but merely \u2018broader,’ as it\u2019s about the \u201ccorrupting nature of power.\u201d What does he mean by \u2018power?’ As is common among socialists \u2014 Orwell included \u2014 Serkis improperly conflates opposites: economic power (the power to produce) and political power (the power to coerce),\u201d Salsman writes, highlighting a key libertarian insight.<\/p>\n \u201cIn effect, Henry Ford and Joseph Stalin are both deemed dangerous because \u2018powerful.\u2019 If you can so easily conflate opposites, you can also easily invert story plots and characters, switch the good guys and bad guys. Serkis does both\u2026. Anything goes.\u201d<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t seen a more devastating critique of the film or a sadder explanation of the limits of Orwell\u2019s ideology even as he admirably recognized harsh truths that other leftists of his era denied.<\/p>\n Perhaps it’s relevant here to mention that the Prometheus Awards are based exclusively on the merits of each winning work – regardless of the avowed views of their authors. “There\u2019s no list of official libertarian authors, or of unacceptable antilibertarian authors. A work can be considered if it attempts to envision a free society, or to show a path that might lead to increased freedom, or if it shows the dangers of authoritarianism as such, or deconstructs an earlier work based on antilibertarian assumptions,” LFS President William H. Stoddard explained in an important Prometheus Blog post, “What Do You Mean ‘Libertarian’?”<\/a><\/p>\n With that context clear, Orwell\u2019s Animal Farm <\/i>and Nineteen Eighty-Four <\/i>are classic anti-authoritarian works that stand on their own merits and deserved Prometheus Awards recognition – and arguably have libertarian themes that transcend the political motivations of their author and his era.<\/p>\n Note: Visit Salman\u2019s own website at richardsalsman.com<\/a> to explore his books and articles for Forbes, The Hill, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, The Objective Standard and other publications.<\/p>\n * Read the previous blog posts in this series about Prometheus winners on screen<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ABOUT THE LFS AND THE PROMETHEUS AWARDS<\/b><\/p>\n *\u00a0Join us!<\/b> To help sustain the Prometheus Awards and support a cultural and literary strategy to appreciate and honor freedom-loving fiction, \u00a0join<\/a> the Libertarian Futurist Society, a non-profit all-volunteer international association of freedom-loving sf\/fantasy fans.<\/p>\n Libertarian futurists understand that culture matters. We believe that literature and the arts can be vital in envisioning a freer and better future. In some ways, culture can be even more influential and powerful than politics in the long run, by imagining better visions of the future incorporating peace, prosperity, progress, tolerance, justice, positive social change, and mutual respect for each other\u2019s rights, human dignity, individuality and peaceful choices.<\/p>\n * Prometheus winners:\u00a0<\/b>For a full list of Prometheus winners, finalists and nominees \u2013 including in the annual Best Novel and Best Classic Fiction (Hall of Fame) categories and occasional Special Awards \u2013 visit the enhanced \u00a0Prometheus Awards page<\/a>\u00a0on the LFS website. This page includes convenient links to all published essay-reviews in our Appreciation series explaining why each of the 106 works that have won a Prometheus since 1979 fits the awards\u2019 distinctive dual focus on both quality and liberty.<\/p>\n *\u00a0Watch videos of past Prometheus Awards ceremonies, Libertarian Futurist Society panel discussions with noted sf authors and leading libertarian writers, and other LFS programs on the Prometheus Blog\u2019s\u00a0Video page.<\/a><\/p>\n * Read \u201cThe Libertarian History of Science Fiction,\u201d<\/a> an essay in the international magazine\u00a0Quillette<\/i>\u00a0that favorably highlights the Prometheus Awards, the Libertarian Futurist Society and the significant element of libertarian sf\/fantasy in the evolution of the modern genre.<\/p>\n * Check out the Libertarian Futurist Society\u2019s Facebook page<\/a> for comments, updates and links to the latest Prometheus Blog posts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Michael Grossberg Of the many reviews of the flawed new film version of George Orwell\u2019s Animal Farm, perhaps the most insightful is one that broadens its critique to examine Orwell himself. Richard M. Salsman, an economist and visiting assistant professor of political economy at Duke University, goes deeper than most other writers in contextualizing … Continue reading Richard Salman\u2019s unusually insightful review of the flawed new Animal Farm film illuminates George Orwell\u2019s thinking and goals in writing his 1945 satirical fable\u2028<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[32,1862,41,2876,8],"tags":[437,279,229,59,280],"class_list":["post-10876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-author-updates","category-george-orwell","category-movies","category-prometheus-winners-on-screen","category-review","tag-animal-farm","tag-capitalism","tag-communism","tag-george-orwell","tag-socialism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pe8nGl-2Pq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10876","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10876"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10876\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11032,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10876\/revisions\/11032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lfs.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/a>\u201cNot only is the original (anti-communist) theme of Animal Farm<\/i> clear to anyone who bothers to read it, but Orwell himself was clearer still in his 1947 preface<\/a> to the Ukrainian version, that \u2018its various episodes are taken from the actual history of the Russian Revolution.\u2019 Orwell also knew, of course, that the 1917 revolt in Russia was not of workers against capitalists but of Bolsheviks and disgruntled (because unpaid) soldiers against the royalist-Czarist regime. Although Bolsheviks were inspired by Marxism and Marx was anti-capitalist, it didn\u2019t follow that the Bolshevik Revolution was an overturning of capitalism. Russia in 1917 was more feudal-agrarian than it was capitalist-industrial,\u201d Salsman writes.<\/p>\n<\/a>Orwell is one of the few writers to have more than one work inducted into the Prometheus Hall of Fame. His Nineteen Eighty-Four<\/em> <\/a>received our recognition (appropriately enough) in 1984, while Animal Farm<\/a> <\/i>was recognized by Libertarian Futurist Society members in 2011.<\/p>\n<\/a>\u201cOrwell (a lifelong Englishman, born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903) said he was apolitical in his youth, then saw poverty and became a democratic socialist. This committed him to being anti-fascist, but he was also candid enough to criticize non-democratic, oppressive forms of socialism. His mistake was to believe that mere voting could soften socialism\u2019s blows. In the 1930s German voters elected the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) and soon got years of tyranny. Conveniently, Orwell blamed that not on the democratic or socialist part of the mix but the nationalist part,\u201d Salsman writes.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n