NAPOLEON, THE MAIN CHARACTER IN GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM, AS THE SYMBOL OF STALIN (A STUDY IN SEMIOTIC APPROACH)

Literary work, such as a novel, is an imitation of the facts that it can be analyzedin symbol that can show how the facts enter in it. Semiotic is one approach thatcan be used to analyze how the symbol works in a literary work. This study is toexplain on how Orwell portrays Napoleon in his Animal farm, to explain on howStalin is, and to explain the aspects that Napoleon symbolizes Stalin in Orwell’sAnimal Farm. The data, which is analyzed in terms of semiotic analysis, isselected into the symbol of Napoleon because this central character has a bigpart of the story. The researcher thinks that Orwell reflects this character toanimal which has a hidden purpose and considers that animal relates to personswhich the story is made. There are three problems to discuss, namely (1) whatare Napoleon’s traits? (2) What are Stalin’s traits? (3) What aspects doesNapoleon symbolize Stalin? The results show that the symbol of pig (Napoleon)has many special traits such as leaderships, intelligence, and unique characterand so Joseph Stalin (the actor of Russian revolution), which people describedhim having his own traits. Both of them have correlation in political, economic, and social and cultural aspect

The Stalin Cult as Political Religion

Political religion is a concept that gained prominence around the middle of the twentieth century, being associated for many with the idea of a totalitarian regime. Political religion was seen as a secular ideology whose followers took it up with the enthusiasm and commitment normally associated with adherence to religion. Comprising liturgy, ritual and the sacralization of politics, it created a community of believers, and usually had a transcendental leadership and a millennial vision of a promised future. This paper will explore the utility of this concept for understanding leader cults in authoritarian regimes. Such cults have been prominent features of authoritarian regimes but there is little agreement at the conceptual level about how they should be understood. One of the most powerful of such cults was that of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953. This paper analyses this cult in terms of liturgy and ritual and concludes that despite some aspects that are common between the cult and religion, most ritualistic aspects of religion find no direct counterpart in the cult.

Nostalgia for the Soviet Past in the Mass Historical Consciousness of Modern Russians

In modern Russia, there is a clear discrepancy between the official policy of historical memory and the mass historical consciousness. In the politics of official memory, Joseph Stalin is a tyrant, a dictator who killed millions of people. In the mass historical consciousness, he is a fighter against corruption and privileges, a caring owner of a huge country. While the mass historical consciousness considers the Victory in the Great Patriotic War as a significant event of the twentieth century, the policy of historical memory turns to the tragic sides of this war. Other examples can be given. At the divergence of the official policy of historical memory and mass historical consciousness, there are “wars of monuments” and “wars of memory”, as well as various manipulative strategies on the part of the authorities. So far, the official policy of historical memory fluctuates between these two formulas. The main reason for the discrepancy between the official policy of historical memory and the mass historical consciousness in modern Russia is that in Russian society, due to economic and political problems, nostalgia for the Soviet past, deemed a time of stability and certainty is growing.

Two Tolstoys and a Lenin—Temperance and Prohibition in Russia

Part I of the book—covering Europe’s continental empires—begins with Chapter 2 on the Russian Empire. The state’s overreliance on revenues from the imperial vodka monopoly is laid bare beginning with the temperance revolts of the 1850s, when the empire was almost bankrupted when peasants refused to drink. The understanding of temperance as opposition to imperial autocracy is traced through the antistatist teachings of Leo Tolstoy and early Bolsheviks, including the prohibitionists Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Despite official opposition to “subversive” temperance activism, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914 Tsar Nicholas II made Russia the first prohibitionist state, though the loss of state revenue paved the way for the revolutions of 1917. Lenin maintained a prohibition against the vodka trade, which was only undone after Lenin’s death by Joseph Stalin, who reintroduced the tsarist-era vodka monopoly in the interests of state finance.

Introduction

Sixteen states came to be ruled by communist parties on the Leninist model. What did they have in common? How did they differ from each other? And how did these evolve over time? This book specifies those common features and differences and explores the reasons that the death of Joseph Stalin led to an explosion of differences. It demonstrates how and why these led to the collapse of European communism and the transformation of three remaining Asian communist states into “Market-Leninist” regimes. It goes on to evaluate the legacy of communism and its likely future in the five remaining communist states.

How Did Communist Regimes Differ from Each Other?

The death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, and his successors’ decision to eliminate the use of mass terror and to improve the population’s standard of living, led to a variety of responses over time to the “de-Stalinization” of Soviet governance and of relations within the world communist movement. The responses included worker rebellions, full-scale revolution, democratization from below, democratization from within the communist party, retention of Stalinist despotism, and transformation of the economic system (to “market Leninism”) and integration into the capitalist international economy.

A Star is Born

This chapter begins with a small group of conspirators of a communist cell that were attending the Eighth Conference of the Zagreb party organization. It mentions Josip Broz as the organizing secretary of the Zagreb party organization who openly presented the struggle that was initiated and controlled by Moscow. Later, Broz will become a famous statesman known as Marshal Tito. The chapter discusses the communist strategy after the October Revolution, in which protagonists of the conflict were Joseph Stalin and eight other members of the Politburo of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). It also refers to Comrade Trotsky, the “prophet of the revolution” and Stalin's chief antagonist, who thinks that all revolutionaries in the world should be supported, including the Chinese communists who were inciting the Shanghai proletariat to rise up in arms.

Enter the Dragon

This chapter considers Mikhail Suslov as the most effective and successful propaganda machine in the history of mankind that the Soviet Union produced. It details how Leonid Brezhnev left the entire ideological sphere to his party ideologue because their views on the basic political course of the regime and the strategy of the Soviet state were identical. It also discusses Brezhnev's restoration of Soviet military supremacy in the world and the tightening of control over society while ensuring continued domination over the Eastern Bloc countries. The chapter explains how Brezhnev left an indelible imprint on the Soviet politics after Joseph Stalin and analyzes why Yugoslavs perceived him as their main enemy. It recounts Marshal Zhukov's provision of army support for Nikita Khrushchev's silent coup, while the members of the “anti-party group” were sent to irrelevant positions in backwater places.

The Maharaja of the Balkans

This chapter investigates the outline of Ambassador George Kennan's so-called “long telegram,” which called for patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It explains how Kennan helped define the Marshall Plan as an instrument of US European policy. It also analyzes Marshall Tito's decision to send his people to Western capitals to establish political relations immediately after his public split with Joseph Stalin. The chapter discusses Tito's absolute split with Stalin that made Yugoslavia leave the Soviet bloc, however it did not indicate a change in Tito's ideological course. It looks at the devastating assessment of the Yugoslavian economic situation, particularly of its agricultural production, concluding that the 1947 harvest indicated shortage of staple foods, growth of inflation, and decrease of industrial production due to obsolete equipment.