Communism in the Barn: Animal Farm

Animal Farm
by George Orwell

This book has been on my shelf for years but I had never read it so I picked it for our book club in May.

In the book, animals on a farm rise up against their human owner and start a cooperative, closely mirroring events as they transpired in the October 1917 revolution in Russia. (My plans for this unit are posted in the Mater Amabilis™ facebook group.) I'm going to add it to our Level 4 schedule for my future students because it so well parallels what they read in the Rise and Fall of Communism term. To be honest, without the Level 4 reading I did this year, much of the book would have been meaningless to me!

I read this particular edition: the Everyman's Library one with an introduction by Julian Symons. After reading the book itself, I read the appendices and the introduction, all of which deepened my understanding of the author, the book, and what the author intended.

Highly recommended.

I received nothing to write this post; all opinions are my own. Links to Amazon are affiliate links. I think my mom gave me this book.

Challenging Reading: Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism)

Divini Redemptoris

On Atheistic Communism

Encyclical of Pope Pius XI

March 19, 1937

The book cover is from Amazon, but it's out of print. I've linked to a free online source for the text above.

First Son read this encyclical in his study of Russia and the Collapse of Communism in twentieth-century history. It's listed as one of the key resources for the Level 4 history program at Mater Amabilis™ in this unit. Because it wasn't very long, I assigned it to read in a single day along with a few pages from another of his books. (My plans for this study can be found in the Facebook Mater Amabilis™ group.)

In this encyclical, Pope Pius XI, reiterates how Communism denigrates the dignity of man, how it is inherently anti-religious, and some of the ways Catholics, including those in the laity, can combat it's pernicious spread. In reading it, I felt like a lot of different ideas settled into place for me. (I'm actually really enjoying the whole unit on Russia!).

The encyclical is focused, of course, on Communism, but I was surprised how many statements seemed to be applicable even today.

As in all the stormy periods of the history of the Church, the fundamental remedy today lies in a sincere renewal of private and public life according to the principles of the Gospel by all those who belong to the Fold of Christ, that they may be in truth the salt of the earth to preserve human society from total corruption.

Novel idea - live a Christian life both in public and private! Many of the ideas, too, reminded me of the two encyclicals I have read, both by Pope Francis.

The rich should not place their happiness in things of earth nor spend their best efforts in the acquisition of them. Rather, considering themselves only as stewards of their earthly goods, let them be mindful of the account they must render of them to their Lord and Master, and value them a precious means that God has put into their hands for doing good; let them not fail, besides, to distribute of their abundance to the poor, according to the evangelical precepts.

Not that it was only written for the rich:

But the poor too, in their turn, while engaged, according to the laws of charity and justice, in acquiring the necessities of life and also in bettering their condition, should always remain "poor in spirit," and hold spiritual goods in higher esteem than earthly property and pleasures. Let them remember that the world will never be able to rid itself of misery, sorrow and tribulation, which are the portion even of those who seem most prosperous. Patience, therefore, is the need of all, that Christian patience which comforts the heart with the divine assurance of eternal happiness.

Later he talked about how the oppression and injustice endured by the poor create a spiritual environment that leaves them vulnerable to the false promises of ideas like Communism.

But when on the one hand We see thousands of the needy, victims of real misery for various reasons beyond their control, and on the other so many round about them who spend huge sums of money on useless things and frivolous amusement, We cannot fail to remark with sorrow not only that justice is poorly observed, but that the precept of charity also is not sufficiently appreciated, is not a vital thing in daily life. We desire therefore, Venerable Brethren, that this divine precept, this precious mark of identification left by Christ to His true disciples, be ever more fully explained by pen and word of mouth; this precept which teaches us to see in those who suffer Christ Himself, and would have us love our brothers as Our Divine Savior has loved us, that is, even at the sacrifice of ourselves, and, if need be, of our very life.

I couldn't help thinking about these words in terms of immigration today in America, from countries suffering from war and the fear of terrorists sneaking in with refugees, and from countries suffering from violence and poverty and the fear of illegal immigrants disproportionately using resources or abusing support systems. I also thought of people in our country who turn to gangs, drugs, or violence because they feel abandoned and excluded by the economic system. I don't know what the answers are in these complicated issues, but I do think injustice and a lack of charity (love) exasperate desperate and frightening situations and encourage people to seek answers from troublesome sources.

Pope Pius XI offered a few suggestions, and perhaps they would contribute to alleviating some of the problems we continue to encounter. I believe Pope Francis also encouraged the same kind of changes.

To be sure of eternal life, therefore, and to be able to help the poor effectively, it is imperative to return to a more moderate way of life, to renounce the joys, often sinful, which the world today holds out in such abundance; to forget self for love of the neighbor. 

First Son struggled a bit while reading this text. When asked to narrate, he could only manage the most basic ideas from the encyclical, but he did get that! We worked through some of the paragraphs together, talking about the vocabulary and tracing the ideas as Pope Pius XI connected them. I explained that he would be reading encyclicals regularly starting next year and that he should be prepared to be challenged in doing so without giving up.

I printed this text from the online source linked above. The book cover is an affiliate link to Amazon. The opinions are my own.

Lenin and Mary: 1917: Red Banners, White Mantle

1917: Red Banners, White Mantle

by Warren H. Carroll

This book appears on the list of supplemental history reading for the study on Russia and the Fall of Communism Level 4 history program at Mater Amabilis™. It is recommended to choose one of these supplemental books, many of which are historical fiction, to read over the six week study. I flipped through four or five of the options listed for the Russian study (ones our library had or that I purchased inexpensively) and, without reading any in full, choose 1917: Red Banners, White Mantle because it included information on Fatima, which otherwise we only touched on, and because the writing seemed particularly eloquent. As I read it, in fact, I found the writing so rich I created a list of words for First Son to look up each week before his reading. (He probably could have figured them out well enough to get by, but I wanted him to appreciate them.)

The Mater Amabilis™ page states this book is a "Catholic perspective on the events of 1917." That's clear from the very beginning of the book.

In the short November afternoon, Francis Joseph felt a great weakness coming upon him. He understood what it meant. He knew he faced death, and he knew death faced his empire, hard beset by the enormous, incalculable perils of a world disintegrating under the stresses of a conflict far more protracted and cosmically destructive than anyone had imagined possible. And he knew the quality of the radiant young couple who had visited with him that morning: their goodness, their hope, their relative innocence, their inexperience, their crystal simplicity of purpose and conviction, but with scarcely a trace of the touch of the ruthless which is very close to being necessary in a temporal ruler in the fallen world.

The book covers, in chronological and detailed order, the events on the World War I battlefields, in the fields of Fatima, and in Russia from December 1916 (after a few preliminary chapters) through December 1917, with a chapter to briefly describe pertinent events through the death of Lenin.

Carroll does not shy away from descriptions of the horrific war or the madness of its beginning and repeated refusals of diplomats to come to peaceable solutions.

These gigantic losses were not suffered in a struggle for some overriding moral or religious principle or right that might not be sacrificed at any cost. Except for one small country, Belgium, the war did not involve any nation's essential freedom or existence. It was a war of fronts in border regions, a war of trenches and attrition, a war that pitted the deadly machine gun against unprotected human flesh. 

His description of Lenin:

Lenin was not a monster. He had a happy childhood, his parents taught him Christian morality (though he rejected it), he loved music and the countryside; he could even care genuinely for people when they did not get in his way. But over and through and above all else throbbed the pounding power of his relentless will, fixed immovably on the revolution, to be achieved by any means, at any cost.

While the author's descriptions of the people and events of the book are riveting, it's sometimes difficult to discern how much those descriptions are shaped by the author's opinions rather than facts. For example, a significant part of his description of the actions of Emperor Charles and Empress Zita upon hearing of Germany's return to unrestricted submarine warfare is based on Zita's remembrances many years later. That doesn't make it untrue, of course, merely weakly supported by the evidence he quotes if one were disinclined to believe Empress Zita. Later, he describes President Woodrow Wilson's re-election.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the former professor who had first been elected President of the United States when two opponents split the vote against him and was then re-elected by an eyelash because his opponent forgot to shake the hand of the Governor of California, is one of the most improbable figures in Americn [sic] political history.

That seemed surprising to me, so I researched a little, trying to wade through websites online. It seems Hughes (running against Wilson) did neglect to shake the California governor's hand, but it might have been more deliberate than it seems from this statement. Also, while the election was close, it seems unlikely that was the only reason Wilson won and rather flippant of the author to suggest it was.

The book presents a rather confusing series of diplomatic negotiations, with many different people involved. I found an article at 1914-1918 Online that helped me understand exactly what was happening. I added it to a page of notes for First Son as well. The article views Charles's attempts at negotiations more as a result of the ravages of war suffered by his country than his professed desire for peace for all Christendom, which is the view presented by Carroll. It seems likely to me it was both and historians choose to emphasize one or the other as they lean themselves.

The author only touches briefly on the horrors experienced outside Petrograd as the peasants were provoked into violent action by Communist agitators.

The full story of the ensuing horror has never been, and probably never will be told. It is composed of ten thousand local tragedies of burning and looting and smashing and killing, of old scores settles [sic] and envy slaked, of just and imaginary grievances all jumbled together and avenged in blood and ashes, each one a bit in a mosaic which it has never served anyone's interest to assemble, and for which most of the needed records either never existed, or vanished in the cataclysm.

Even as I neared the end of the book, I found it difficult to discern the relationship Carroll was attempting to draw between the apparitions at Fatima and the events as they occurred in Russia. He would make these kinds of grand sweeping statements:

The war that came upon the world from 1914 to 1918 was not only a war of men and nations, generals and armies, monarchs and revolutionaries. The legions and the powers of Heaven and of Hell were engaged as well, as well-attested events from December 1916 to October 1917 clearly show to those with eyes to see, and ears to hear.

The author seemed to believe they were clear, but other than the chronology and the reflections written some twenty years later by someone who was a sometimes frightened and impressionable child, I don't think he made his case very well. I am not saying the apparitions at Fatima did not occur or that the documentation of them made later were inaccurate, just that this book did not seem to explain exactly what effect the prayers of the children and believers at Fatima had on the events in Russia.

It remained to be seen how many, even yet, would hear and heed her words and help her by their prayers, and by lives more pleasing to God, to change the course of history--to convert the Russia which was about to fall into Lenin's grasp.

But...what was the effect? Is he arguing it would have been worse? Or that the people did not sacrifice and pray enough? Or that we should be continuing to sacrifice and pray for the people suffering under Communism in the USSR (in 1981, when the book was published)? I couldn't tell!

Only in one place, late in the book, does he refer to one possibility. Carroll was writing of how Lenin thought all of Europe, and then the world, would revolt and become Communist in the wake of the horrors of World War I.

His euphoria was somewhat premature, even in light of what he did surely know and reasonably suspect. But he was not so far wrong as nearly everyone since has tended to think. There is good reason to believe that the Western world stood very close to final catastrophe in that ghastly autumn of 1917. How many more Passchendaeles could any nation, however disciplined and loyal to its leaders, have endured without breaking? We may presume that no inconsiderable part in preventing that ultimate collapse was played by the prayers offered for peace--by Pope Benedict XV, by the children of Fatima offering their daily rosary for peace as the Lady had asked, by the suffering and the dying, by the victims of the rural terror in Russian, and by millions more throughout Europe and the world.

So, we are presumably to believe that the prayers of Fatima offered in response to Mary's request, did save the world from a massive Communist movement that would have begun in Russia and enveloped the world. There's no way to argue against that and it might very well be true, but it was odd to me that this was the only instance where he mentioned what might have been an outcome. There are other times when he points out how Lenin's plans nearly fell apart (like when he was not arrested the night before the revolution in October, despite being stopped by two mounted officers while wandering the streets without papers). It would be just as easy (thought not in line with the rest of the book) to argue that the prayers of the faithful benefitted the revolution.

Warren talks about how Woodrow Wilson, in his speech asking Congress to declare war, said it was necessary in order to help bring democracy and freedom to the world. Warren contends that almost the opposite occurred.

The principal historical consequence of World War I was to be the establishment, as far into the future as human eyes can see, of the most fearful, pervasive, far-flung tyranny in the history of mankind--a tyranny so gigantic and so evil that, in the end, only the Mother of God in person can conquer it.

A powerful statement, and one that might be interesting to consider: Was the most important consequence of World War I the rise of communism in Russia, especially given Germany's obvious use of Lenin as a disruptive agent delivered to Russia? It's seems a different argument then to move from that to Mary being the only one who can conquer it.

There are clear references to Rasputin's debauchery and lewdness that would be inappropriate for some younger readers. Additionally, descriptions of the trench warfare are also graphic and horrific, as befits the war.

Here's a link to the Google Doc I made for First Son with a list of vocabulary to check before reading and some articles of interest. I divided the book into five readings and planned for him to read one each week. That gave us some leeway, which we ended up needing when his World War II book (the unit just before this one) went a week over.

I am glad I read this book as I found it an interesting and engaging account of the events of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. I have assigned it to First Son, though I didn't finish it before he started it. Having now read the whole book, I will leave the assignments as they are, though I'm not convinced I'll assign it to the other children. I think that will depend on discussions I may have with First Son about it. There's nothing overtly wrong with the book, but I feel like the author makes vast statements without adequate support and I'm not sure how that may come across to a Level 4 student. Will First Son believe it all at face value? Is it necessary that he does not? I don't know! Unless there are some amazing discussions around this book, I'll probably choose something else as there are lots of other options. But we'll see.