A Character Analysis: Boxer and Capitalism in George Orwell’s Animal Farm

Fighter … The Proletariat

Communism. What comes to mind when you hear the word, communism? Do you think about malevolent leaders, or do you think about a flourishing society? In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx pressed forward his concepts of Communism and rejected the Capitalist system by depicting the constant battle between the Bourgeoisie, the upper middle class, and the Proletariat, the working class. Marx constantly informs the reader that the Bourgeoisie had actually changed people of previous occupations into “paid wage-laborers,” how, the proletariat becomes just another “part of the maker”, and how the proletariat is being made the most of by the bourgeoisie. All these themes prevail both in The Communist Manifesto and in Animal Farm, which appear into Fighter, the “work-horse” on the farm. These styles support the concept that Orwell’s representation of Fighter suits Marx and Engels’ critique of commercialism

Orwell’s depiction of Fighter fits into Marx’s and Engels’s review of commercialism since it demonstrates how Boxer, once just a workhorse on the farm, is changed into a full-fledged worker. When Marx states: “The bourgeoisie has removed of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and admired with reverent wonder. It has actually transformed the physician, the attorney, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-laborers,” (TCM, page 16) he shows how the working class is stripped of who they utilized to be, and how they are changed into workers. In Animal Farm when Orwell states: “The pigs did not really work, however directed and supervised the others. With their supervisor knowledge it was natural that they assume management. Boxer and Clover would harness themselves to the cutter or the horse-rake (no bits or reins were required in nowadays, obviously) and tramp progressively round and round the field with a pig walking behind and calling out, ‘Gee up, associate’ or ‘Woah back, associate!’ as the case may be,” (AF, page 27-28) it is shown how the pigs provide everybody roles as laborers, while they do not work.

Marx’s and Engel’s critique of industrialism fits well with the representation of Boxer in Animal Farm since it is shown how mainly Boxer, however many other working animals on the farm, are simply another piece to the puzzle. When Marx states: “Owing to the substantial use of equipment and to department of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individuals character, and subsequently, all appeal for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is just the most simple, many monotonous, an most quickly gotten flair, that is required of him,” (TCM, page 20) he demonstrates how the proletariats end up being a part of a maker that continuously works and produces, never stopping. When Orwell shows: “Certainly the animals did not desire Jones back; if holding disputes on Sunday early morning was responsible to being him back, then the debates should stop. Fighter, who had now time to think things over, voiced the basic sensation by saying: ‘If Associate Napoleon states it, it should be right.’ And after that he adopted the maxim, ‘Napoleon is constantly right,’ in addition to his private slogan of ‘I will work harder,'” (A.F. page 56) he shows how Fighter does not question any of Napoleons judgements and how he is submissive. Boxer is undoubtedly simply another appendage of the maker; he stays compliant and does his task, and when Napoleon is not sated, Fighter replies with “I will work harder.”

Fighter’s representation by George Orwell suits the review of capitalism by Marx and Engel due to the fact that in both readings, it is demonstrated how the proletariat, or in this case, Boxer, is continuously being made the most of by the Bourgeoisie, or the pigs. When Karl states: “Modern industry has actually converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the commercial capitalist. Masses of workers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers … Not only are they servants of the bourgeois class, and of bourgeois State; they are day-to-day and hourly enslaved by the device, by the over looker, and, above all of it, by the specific bourgeois producer himself,” (TCM, page 21) he shows how the proletariats are completely made use of and controlled by the bourgeois for cost-effective gain, and how they are “enslaved,” made to work. When Orwell includes: “All the animals used up the cry of ‘Go out, Boxer, go out!’ However the van was currently gathering speed and drawing from them. It doubted whether Fighter had understood what Clover had actually stated. But a moment later on his face disappeared from the window and there was the noise of a remarkable drumming of hoofs inside the van. He was trying to kick his way out. The time had actually been when a couple of kicks from Boxer’s hoofs would have smashed the van to matchwood. However alas! His strength had actually left him …” (A.F. page 123) he demonstrates how once Fighter came down with a disease and lost the majority of his working strength, the pigs found no more usage of him, as he was now a liability, and utterly worthless in their eyes, since he might no longer work. Although there was no “workshop” that was drawn from Fighter, the pigs abused his amazing ability to work and exploited it as long as they could.

Karl and Marx used their Communist Manifesto to spread their communistic ideas to shut down the corrupt capitalist system. The twain used the relationship in between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat to show how commercialism is nonfunctional. Boxer, an essential character in Orwell’s Animal Farm was used to reveal this relationship and how the capitalist system is flawed. The Bourgeoisie had actually changed individuals of previous occupations into “paid wage-laborers,” the proletariat became simply another “part of the maker”, and the proletariat is benefited from by the bourgeoisie. All these concepts can be carried out in the relationship in between Boxer and the pigs, which support how Orwell’s representation of Fighter fits in the critique of commercialism by Karl Marx.

You Might Also Like