Blog

“The second reason is the participation of the Soviet Union in the victory over Nazism which allowed the Communists to use fervent patriotism as a mask to conceal their latest plans to take power into their own hands… And they “played the martyr” in order to sanctify the Communist cause and to silence their blood alongside their communist fellows. As a result of this past these non-communists may have been willing to turn a blind eye to certain things” (courtois et al. 21-22). 

Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”(Orwell 36).

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a striking allegory against totalitarianism. It sharply criticizes the ways in which power can be maintained and strengthened through fear and manipulation. The same methods of control can be seen in any totalitarian regime. The Black Book of Communism highlights how the Soviets masked themselves as martyrs in the struggle against antifascism. In “play[ing] the martyr” against facism the Soviets were able to sanctify their oppressive strategies and ultimately appear upstanding similar to how Squealer represses dissent and perpetuates a positive sentiment by threatening the return of Jones, the greater evil. 

The Soviet Union rationalized their cruel methods of control by portraying sacrifice as a noble act against the cause of antifascism. This narrative reframed the meaning of suffering into something meaningful. In the midst of World War II, Communists in all occupied countries commenced an active armed resistance against Nazi or Italian occupation forces. The price of this resistance cost thousands of lives. However, Communists took this opportunity to reframe their resistance as fighting, or dying, for a cause – a fundamental communist belief. Thus, the strategy of “play[ing] the martyr” became highly effective and silenced many critics of communism (22). Furthermore, the resistance triggered a large sentiment of solidarity and encouraged people to “shed blood against their communist fellows”(22). This seemingly positive and patriotic act of resistance helped many non-communists turn a blind eye to certain problematic aspects of the Communist Party. Because the Allies considered Nazism to be the highest evil, Communism in its antifascist fight, ended up on the side of good. The communist victory of the Nazis was instrumentalized as a way to demonstrate the superiority of the Communist Party. For the parts of Europe liberated by Britain and America where occupations hadn’t occurred, this was a perfect place for the Soviet Union to implement propaganda to trigger a strong sense of gratitude to the Red Army and guilt towards the sacrifices made by the U.S.S.R. The Communists played upon the sentiments of Europeans to spread the Communist message.

Similarly, George Orwell reveals Squealer’s manipulation tactics in invoking the terror of Jones’s return to justify the poor conditions endured by the animals on the farm. When the animals start to express silent doubts about the pigs possession of the milk and apples, Squealer as expected is sent out to stifle their uncertainties. Instead of giving an honest explanation, he distorts his explanation as something positive that benefits the animals, not the pigs. He goes on to tie in a subtle threat questioning “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”(36). In consistently threatening the return of Jones, Squealer is injecting fear as a method of control. This goes alongside with the constant reminder and fervent belief held by every animal that hardship is preferable to life under Jones. Squealer’s strategic explanations successfully repress any doubts had by the animals while continuing to strengthen his power and authority. Orwell utilizes the totalitarian concept of how fear of a greater enemy can be used to make oppressive conditions seem acceptable. 

In both The Black Book of Communism and Geroge Orwell’s Animal Farm the presence of an external villain distorts oppression into something almost tolerable as it presents the illusion that it protects against a far greater danger. For the Soviet Communists it was facism that allowed them to “play the martyr” and in fervently fighting against antifascism, appear to be on the right side of history. In Animal farm it was the fear of Jones that manipulated the animals into enduring arguably worse conditions than prior to the rebellion, purely in fear of his return. Comparing the two reveals the striking similarities in that both terror and fervent loyalty and patriotism can make individuals blind to oppression. 

The fundamental strategy of using fear as a method of control is seemingly ubiquitous. The Soviet Union fighting antifascism as a way to present themselves as martyrs and Squealers weaponization and persistent threat of jones frames these struggles into something essential against the fight of a greater evil. However, suffering goes beyond this as something not only unavoidable but also aspirational. Orwell’s Allegory is chillingly powerful as it mirrors the very strategies used by Communist regimes of the 20th century to install fear, and silence dissent. As we’ve seen, living in fear makes it dangerously easy to accept oppression as normal. However, acknowledging this is pivotal as it reminds us to criticize whether sacrifices are a tool to encourage unchecked power. 

Totalitarianism in High Noon and Rio Bravo.

Rio Bravo was made in response to High Noon which John Wayne later called “Un American.” Rio Bravo specifically objected to a protagonist portrayed as someone who had been abandoned by his community and left in a state of desperation. Begging for help it his quaker wife, who abhors violence, who finally has to save him. Thus, John Wayne and Howard Hawks teamed up to tell a story portraying a hero who doesn’t display any fear or inner conflict, never once repudiates his commitment to public duty, and stays loyal to his friends. Where High Noon highlights the concerns about totalitarianism through isolation and civic apathy, Rio Bravo asserts that solidarity, even from the most unassuming individuals, can challenge totalitarian powers. 

In the film High Noon, fear erodes communal responsibility. This mirrors how populations in totalitarian societies often remain passive, enabling totalitarian power. Up until this point, Will Kane has been continuously pressured to leave town and avoid the criminal, Frank Miller, whom he locked up. Now free, Frank Miller is on his way back to Hadleyville in search of revenge for Kane. As Kane refuses to leave, he instead attempts to recruit deputies to fight Miller and his men. Unfortunately, he finds that almost everyone is far too cowardly for the job. In this scene, Will Kane goes to visit the former Marshal Martin Howe. For Will, Howe acts as a mentor and someone Will has looked up to all his life. Thus, when Will goes to visit he expects advice and guidance but instead, Howe states, “It figures, it’s all happened too sudden, people gotta talk themselves into law and order before they do anything about it… maybe because down deep they don’t care…they just don’t care”(53:09). This quote hints at the profound apathy among citizens. Almost more dangerous than fear, it is this exact lack of conviction that helps totalitarianism thrive. Indifference is the key driver in operating unchecked power. As Will once again asks for guidance, Howe merely expresses the same strong desire for Will to leave town. Will specifically came to Howe as a last resort, hoping that his loyalty and relationship to Howe would hold some significance; however, Will leaves discouraged without Howe’s assistance, and without anyone willing to defend the law. The scene ends zoomed in on Howe’s face, where he states, “it’s all for nothing” (54:32). As a former Marshal who devoted his life to justice, Howe feels that it was all meaningless, and thus, Will’s efforts are going to be inconsequential. This pivotal exchange reveals that underneath the external threat of Frank Miller exists the threat of crumbling civic duty. Will entreats Howe for advice; however, Howe instead embodies cynicism. Framing the law as something “people gotta talk themselves into” highlights the law as merely a social construct. Howe’s words reveal that totalitarianism feeds on fear and violence, but more dangerously, apathy. As fear triggers indifference, power becomes fortified for those imposing fear. Will experiences this lack of conviction first hand as those who had once supported him now stand withdrawn from collective responsibility. Kane, forced to stand alone by even his most fervent allies, further reveals the isolating nature of trying to resist totalitarianism.

Antithetically Rio Bravo emphasizes that solidarity and community is the remedy to totalitarianism. Despite overwhelming odds, even the smallest and most loyal communities can resist totalitarian oppression. In this scene, Nathan Burdette confronts Sheriff John Chance about his brother Joe being held in prison for killing a man in a saloon. Chance knows that Nathan is a man of great wealth and power who would use that power for his benefit stating: “He’s no good, but he’s your brother. If he committed 20 murders you’d see he didn’t hang for them”(1:01:45). Essentially, his wealth makes Nathan the figure of unchecked authority as his money could potentially be used to corrupt the justice systems in place. Nathan is equally as aware of this as he responds to Chance saying, “I don’t like that kind of talk, now you’re partially accusing me-”(1:01:47). However, this is simply a bluff from Nathan as he knows full well that he has been using his power for exactly those reasons. For example, Nathan had been employing his men to watch Chance and “trying to catch [him] with [his] back turned,” or Nathan having killed one of Chance’s friends who was volunteering to help (1:02:00). Both the fear of being watched as well as ruthless acts of violence are characteristic to any totalitarian power structures. Moreover, Nathan feels so unchecked in his power because he feels unthreatened by Chance as a figure of justice. In stating “What are you gonna do about it” in a tone of near mockery, further reveals that Nathan doesn’t take Chance seriously. After explaining to both Joe and Nathan that Chance intends to keep Joe locked up until the U.S. Marshall arrives, something that surely scared both Joe and his brother, Joe responds with: “he talks awful big for a man thats all alone except for a bar fly and a cripple”(1:02:40). This is a pivotal moment in the scene as it highlights the perceived fragility of Chance’s resistance to power. From the perspective of the Burdettes, it seems that Chance’s team of support is almost laughable. Clarifying that Chance’s team was merely composed of society’s outcasts – “a bar fly and a cripple,” reveals that it matters not the type of people resisting but rather that solidarity and conviction exist regardless. Unlike High Noon, the emphasis in this scene is not placed on an abandoned individual but rather on an intensely loyal group of people who choose courage over fear. Instead of a town succumbing to the perils of totalitarianism, Rio Bravo highlights how solidarity, no matter how small, can resist oppression.

“How could I help but feel stunned? For I knew that the documents and the film meant much more than any part they might play in the libel suit. They challenged my life itself. They meant that there had been given into my hands the power to prove the existence of the Communist conspiracy. They meant that I must decide once for all whether to destroy that documentary proof and continue to spare those whom I had so far shielded, or to destroy the conspiracy with the means which seemed to have been put into my hands for that reason by the action of a purpose that reached far back into the past to the moment and the impulse that had first led me to secrete the film and papers. There was this one chance, and only this one, which, if I destroyed the evidence, would never come again. I knew, too, that whatever else I destroyed, I could do what I had to do only if I was first of all willing to destroy myself” (649). 

Throughout Whittaker Chambers’ memoir Witness, we see Chambers faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas. For Chambers, it seems that each dilemma is intensified by the effects of communist totalitarianism. This passage reveals how totalitarianism forces the annihilation of self because Chambers must acknowledge his own destruction before accepting his act of resistance as possible.

Towards the end of the passage, Chambers states: “I could do what I had to do only if I was first of all willing to destroy myself”(649). This chilling statement reveals the existential nature of his decision. Furthermore, the language of this quote highlights the totalizing power of totalitarianism. It specifically points to how Chambers had no room for compromise or partial resistance. Instead, he had to make the stark decision between shielding and exposing the communist conspiracy. Proving the existence of the communist conspiracy would mean sacrificing every aspect of life in which he held autonomy. For example, his own safety, loved ones, and private identity. Chambers’ dilemma is made nearly impossible by a system that forces individuals to choose between total complicity and self-erasure.

One major concern that emerges from this is the disintegration of the boundary separating Chamber’s private and political life. Chamber’s remarks that his choice “challenged my life itself” revealing how incredibly deeply political power had infiltrated his personal life (649). Under normal circumstances, perhaps not under communist totalitarianism, forms of resistance would not challenge one’s privacy or individuality. However, totalitarianism makes it so that any act of dissent or resistance becomes inextricably linked to self-destruction. The nature of Chambers’ dilemma as a life-threatening existential crisis reveals how dangerous and institutionalized totalitarianism is. Furthermore, Chamber’s displays how totalitarianism can go as far as infiltrating one’s conscience, losing someone the psychological autonomy they may have once had.  

Chambers’ paradox, in which his freedom is only ensured first by his own destruction, reveals how totalitarianism not only represses freedom but also corrupts its very meaning. It’s simply unattainable without self-sacrifice. However, there is a layer of nuance in which the destruction Chambers faces goes beyond just himself. It also seeps into his personal relationships. Exposing the existence of the communist conspiracy means Chambers would betray “those whom I had so far shielded.” In the attempt to shield those bound to him by old communist loyalties, totalitarianism acts as a form of emotional blackmail. Essentially, it ensures that any act of resistance or acts also acts as a form of betrayal. As communism continues to infiltrate almost every facet of ones life, it becomes more difficult and costly to resist. It goes from simply resisting the communist beliefs to betraying a part of ones self that may have been once aligned with the party.

From this passage, we can work towards a definition of totalitarianism as a system that commands total control by giving individuals no way of resistance without the cost of self-destruction. Chambers’ moral dilemma reveals how any violence triggered by totalitarianism is not limited to institutions but reaches into the most intimate parts of someone’s identity. This erodes any chance of maintaining independence. For Chambers, it seems almost impossible for truth and survival to coexist.