My personal favorite point to take from Animal Farm is how Boxer is treated. He is loyal, works harder than anyone, an inspiration to others. He works so hard he is crippled, and he is assured he will go to his just reward. That reward? The glue factory. Those in power will use you up and if they can get a couple pennies for your corpse they'll do that too.
Orwell was a communist, one of the important things to note is that at the end of the book the animals are suffering just as much as at the beginning. Orwell is saying Stalinism is just as bad as capitalism, not that capitalism is good
+Aguila701 Which was pretty much the method proposed by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. It preaches violence to get things done, and the hate an enemy.
+Maxime Proulx Marx also encourages Democracy and it wasn't until Lenin's revolution that the concept of a "vanguard" came to be. In fact, Animal Farm isn't even pro Capitalism. It was Orwell critiquing the Bolsheviks. He even literally made them pigs lol. Marxism-Leninism isn't the only form of Marxism
EXCUUUSE me sir Im a little baby boy and my momma luvs me plenty! I was just makin a comment in a satirically rude manner ironically, so calm down continue eating and sleeping and keeping yourself living healthy, proud of you! Dont let your dreams be dreams and buy your mom a house and buy your whole family houses.
feels bad man, i pained me how hard my boy boxer worked, all for nothing. every pages i flipped i hoped it would start with "one day snowball returned"
It's not really his stupidity, but a case of loyalty to power. Or in this case, a loyalty to a corrupt power that was misusing the animals for their own selfish gain.
He really makes it clear that a lack of education and critical thinking is part of why the pigs gained ultimate power over the animals. Only a few animals could read. Boxer tried, but wasn't able to and was more interested in loyalty to the cause. The sheep represented patriotism, to me. Shouting over all the other animals when they made any attempt at dissent. Benjamin could read and understood what was happening, but he wouldn't take a stand and in the end lost one of his best friends. All the animals just accept it when the pigs tell them they're basically too stupid to remember what really happened or what was when the commandments are changed. I saw a lot of similarities between the animals and things here in the U.S.
If you really want an eye opener, read Gustave Gilbert's interview of Herman Goering before the Nuremberg Trials. When Gilbert argues that what happened in Germany could never happen in the u.s. or u.s.s.r., Goering literally gives him a five step recipe at control: "[...]Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Potato is talking about politics right now. People are hideously stupid and are making decisions based on media manipulation, loyalty to their party, patriotism, ignorance, and those are are aware of what's going on plan to leave the country rather than do something to prevent the country going to shit.
I think the sheep were an allegory for party loyalists in Russia (and later China) who turned up at meetings for the express purpose of shouting their enthusiasm for the leader whenever somebody with a different idea tried to speak.
+Robert Scott because it would emply that the revoltuion would have been morr successful if Trotsky was Lenins succesor. and thoughts like that are illegal in the heart of imperialism. i wasnt tought about the russia. revolution allegory either. we just read it, talked about corruption and moved on. i do like how thug notes tocuhed that things started going south when materials were becoming scarce and they had to turn to foreign policy for help. like Trotsky said, communism can onlyngo into full effect when it is destroyed on a global scale. Animal Farm is anti-Stalin not anti-communist,but schools wouldnt be allowed to teach that for obviously
+LionWingenedMunki39 because critical thinking would lead to obvious answers such as, America and its capitalist iron fist is the reason for most of the bullshit going on arouns the world
***** out of all the examples you could have given, you chose feminism You can't be serious, you really think you are being oppressed by women? get over you frail sense of masculinity
***** Yeah, we're at the middle of it, right between "women are oppressed" and "women are oppressors". That's why right now, women earn exactly the same as men, popular media shows women as main characters just as much as men, we have as just as many female leaders as men, and there aren't major parts of the world where women are treated like second-class citizens. "The oppressed become the oppressors" misses any amount of nuance Orwell was communicating in the novel, and your analogy is massively off-base.
Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, and I would add an Anarchist Leftist. Its amazing how he points out that the worst thing that can happen to Communism is to become Capitalism. Basically he equates a Stalin dictator with a capitalist.. He clearly believed in this idea that the workers should own and control the factory, because he describes the Animal farm as being more successful more advanced than the capitalist system, and workers work with more passion (like they work for themselves). Its amazing how Americans miss these aspects.. He basicaly was a Trotskyist.. (a Communist arguing nobody should be a ruler. arguing against Representative Democracy basically)
Surprised you didn't mention the Donkey and his cryptic message "Donkeys live a long time". Pretty sure that means something like this had happened before and that revolution is an endless cycle.
This story goes deeper. It isn't just about communism. It's about human nature in general and how a corrupt governing body will always take charge and enslave their fellow man.
+Aguila701 Well not really... Sure Old Major may have been the one to throw these events into motion, but he only had the best in mind. All he wanted was for all animals to be truly equal. He wanted his fellow comrades to live in the Utopia he dreamed of. Unfortunately, he came up with a system that just doesn't work. Animalism (Communism) is basically a society without the use of currency. Everybody works their job and then the government distributes everything the people need. Only problem with that is when you give that much power to a single dictator, they will use it to oppress the population and further their own needs. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
+Cristopher Johnson Animalism was meant to represent Stalinist distortion of Communism, Orwell was a Socialist who fought with Socialists and Communists in the Spanish Civil War.
Absolutely. I'm not calling Communism bad. In a way, its supposed to be a utopia, except it will never work. Sure you can write the ideas down on a paper but when they are applied to real life, it gets twisted by the one in charge. In the beginning of the story Old Major introduces true Animalism. At first, it represents actual communism. Over the course of the story, animalism is slowly twisted by Napoleon into a whole new system of government. The original Animalism was a utopia, but it was changed to have a negative connotation.
+Cristopher Johnson Communist theory was never about utopia. The characterisation of anything as utopian and not scientific is nonsense. The issue arises in the Soviet Union where the purpose of the Revolution became undone by the bureaucracy and power-grabbing of the leadership which in turn led to reppression of opposing ideas. Animal Farm in itself isn't perfect but commies should take some serious consideration of it's implications about democracy and organisation after the revolution.
As a teenager, I have to say that this account is such a great idea! A lot of the other kids in my school would never read books like this, but when I showed them this video they were entertained and incredibly excited to read the book! The analysis and summary of the books are well thought out, and introduce concepts that many high school students don't really learn in high school. The mix of pop culture (thug) and academia (notes) is very well done. The comedy is not distracting from the important motifs and themes that are so thoroughly explained. Honestly, I have to be grateful that youtube gives the opportunity for talented people like Wisecrack to do such amazing things and provide amazing educational material that teenagers will actually enjoy watching. I am actually very disappointed by some of these comments made by teachers, who clearly don't understand that this is what teenagers are entertained by. Btw, I'd love to see some Jane Austen up in here, G.
Lmomjian I never thought about that. But if you think about it, there really probably were communist revolutionaries who just wanted to gain power, and used marxism as a tool.
+Lmomjian in reality Lenin started the revolt himself, succeeded, but died in 1924, unable to prevent Stalin`s dictatorship. Lenin did not like Stalin, khew that he is a rough guy who never bent, and offered his mates to elect Trotskiy as the leader, but failed. Once started, the revolution is uncontrollable.
In 1984 there's this book of Goldstein that says exactly that. Got 3 classes, low middle and high. The whole of human history involves class struggle, with the middle class manipulating the lower class to overthrow the high class so they can become the oppressors. After a while the bits of the low class that benefited from this struggle and the dissents from the high class got to the middle class and again manipulated the lower class to overthrow the higher class, and it goes on forever.
@@ericklopes4046 woah. I mean it makes sense. The book immediatly shows the inequality among humans in a second. The pigs learn to read and write, they are naturally more adapt at such work than say the horses, but the horses are more suited to physical labor. The part where it breaks down is that the pigs begin growing arrogant of their intellect and seeing others who don't possess it as less equal. They don't realize that the plan for the farm and the reality of that plan are two sides of the same coin, no one more important than the other.
@Mark Anthony Yes. What's more intriguing is, if you delve into other Orwell's books (specially Way to Wigan Pier) he makes his case for socialism, yet the very ideology that is described as evil in 1984 is English Socialism. As for innate differences in work potential among different animals, Marx accounted for that and said you shouldn't set total equality as a viable political goal. A man shouldn't simply be entitled to the product of his own labour. You can say Animal Farm had everything to work out great, and it did for a while. The problem's that even after seizing the means of production, someone still had to manage things (pigs). Shit went downhill when they managed to deceive and excluded other animals from the decision making process. Orwell's point was to emphasize the democracy both Soviet Union and Fascist regimes rejected: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” - George Orwell. The similarities between Animal Farm and the Soviet Union are staggering: 1. Both lacked the advancements in production methods brought by capitalism, being mostly rural and feudal, and so they had to build modern infrastructure as revolution established itself. 2. The old pig who died can be compared to Lenin, who also died during political turmoil and advised not to pick Stalin as party leader. 3. The pig who got shit together and helped to pave the way for the revolution was persecuted in Animal Farm, he can be compared to Trotsky, who was also killed by his fellow soviets and finally 4. The pig who concentrated power in his hands, idolised himself and promoted purges can be compared to Stalin. Orwell adopts many Marxist views (such as that of class struggle/thesis vs antithesis and synthesis) and yet is critical of the Soviet Union and orthodox Marxists due to their dogmatism. Despite of his political alignment with Marxists, he still feared a worldwide dichotomy dominated by tyranny, using the evildoings of one side to justify the other and vice-versa. Here's a quote from that Wigan Pier one: "And all the while everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. Yet the fact that we have got to face is that Socialism is not establishing itself. Instead of going forward, the cause of Socialism is visibly going back. At this moment Socialists almost everywhere are in retreat before the onslaught of Fascism, and events are moving at terrible speed."
@@ericklopes4046 How would that system work? And how does it differ from the capitalism we have now? Like seriously I don't understand what a total socialist society, or socialist democracy would look like.
These are spectacular. To concisely summarize legendary works of literature using language that everyone can easily understand is a rare skill. Outstanding.
religion actually had a very important role in communism because although stalin benefited from having religion to pacify the proletariat, he also believed religion distracted people from they're faith in the communist party, placing it instead in idols, which would perhaps not motivate them to work as hard for him as he deemed fit. the east berliners were also strong catholics, and disliked communism for this reason as it portrayed stalin and the communist system above they're god. so just as in reality moses and religion are both warily left to they're ways, but with a wary caution.
I thought it represented the fact that religion was one of the first thing to be sling out of the USSR, but when people’s faith in communism began to falter, religion began creeping back, much like Moses.
I think I vaguely remember an animated movie based on this book. If my memory serves, it much darker than the book. Like when Snowball was chased off the farm, you hear him making panicked squeals not long after he goes off-screen, and you see a crow watching. Which seems to hint that he was brutally killed by the dogs. In fact, I think the crow appears every time someone dies/gets killed. And I think the movie ended with the other animals rebelling against the pigs and their "more equal" status and I think the crow appears in that scene too.
I never saw the animated movie, but I did see the movie movie with animated mouths and stuff for them. They even show Old Major's severed head in a fridge after the people flee and the animals start exploring the house. It was horrifying!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Animal Farm was published before Stalin had Trotsky murdered, so it makes more sense for newer adaptations to have Snowball mauled to death by the dogs. Even necessary.
Me too. That usage of the word has become so ingrained in culture as moving from one thing to another that when you consider it meaning the same as all the other uses of the word revolution, it's a simple yet paradigm shattering realization.
spainalmate69 I mean kinda. It comes from the late latin “revolutio” meaning a turn around whereas the other sense comes from the early “revolvere” meaning to roll back or restore.
Thank you so much for doing these videos! You have really sparked my interest in the classics. I'm learning to really appreciate the lessons that are hidden in these stories that I took for granted in high school. Please don't stop anytime soon!
Yet another great video. Sharp, funny, and full of insight. This is a great work you're undertaking here, man. Looking forward to whatever you decide to tackle next.
I was thinking about Boxer the horse who worked so hard that he ended up hurting himself and was taken to the 'vet.' You learn that he was actually sent to the glue factory. That made me think that Boxer representing the working man had to work past their breaking point to keep things together. Like how glue does. It might just be coincidence but it makes sense.
I stumbled upon this segment (I think the first one I watched was the Gatsby video) after waking up at 2am. It is now 4:16 and I can't stop watching them 😂 I love the accurate ass, succinct summarization of all of these books. Especially while my boyfriend I've read them to is laughing in the background saying "would have taken way less time and effort if you'd have just been played me these"
One point I love is how Major said that Boxer what not work to his death under Animalism like he would under Jones ,but thats exactly what would happen under Napoleon
Forget Trump. This book is relevant today in regards to the modern charlatans who use the language of "equality" to push for the destruction of all social norms, and for some people to be more equal than others...
I asked and you delivered! Thanks for the hook up Sparky Sweets, PHD. Like watching my English paper from college come to real life. Mad respect, I told all my boys that they need to get on your channel. Thug Notes is the truth!
II have been watching some of these videos for the first time ever and I enjoy them a lot. Instantly subscribed! I hope to see more exquisite content from Thug Notes. Thank you.
Man Wisecrack y'all saved my ass on Pride & Prejudice. Today I'm making a book list to read over the summer before college, and watch each Thug Notes when i'm finished. Thank you guys so much for reviving my want and need to read!.
Just want to let it out after reading it. I know many stories about bosses nowadays who just like those pigs in Animal Farm. They promise the life will be better and "both of us aim to a noble goals", and the employees work for themselves. But the bosses keep getting richer but the working conditions of the employees stay the same. Every "improvement" is not for the sake of being more productive in order to make the working life easier, but just to have time to milk for more work. I have heard so much in the media lately about a quote of some rich presidence, that "if you want to be poor, don't bother and rest at home at the weekend" and it makes me so mad. That the minimum salary is not enough for pay the bills, only enough when you work overtime. It's scary. Not only about politic, but everytime when you have power and greed at hand.
as a child in the 80s, I saw a little something of this newspaper but the next day or so, trying to remember the name I thought it was Prada...and that was years before I knew Prada was a clothing brand
I thought Animal Farm was about a nice little farm where the animals lived adventures and such. Then I read it and realized how wrong I was... I was fucking 10. Why did mommy leave books like Crime and Punishment and Animal Farm and all the original Brüder Grimm tales with their bloody details near me?!!!!!
@@mobydick3769 hahaha, pretty much the same thing happened to me too XD One day my mom brought me a pile of library books I could read when I was 11 and one of the books was the Animal Farm. I picked it up thinking that it is some kind of fun story about animals in a farm... Well I wasnt that wrong in the first place, just that I never realized that the book was about communism until I picked that book up again when I was 16.
Man i want to thank you for saving my life. Also thanks to Thug from turning Animal farm from a boring book to a book with laughter. I personally liked it when he had said "Snowball had is - butt- out of russia" Keep up the good work!
"A revolution ending where it began" holy shit that's deep... And... True! For the US at least. Maybe. I don't know about other countries like Panama, South Africa, India, etc.
It's very true in the case of the Soviet Union, and it's sad to say that it looks like America is getting closer to that, (with trump in the lead) but I don't think you can at least say that about South Africa. They overcame racism and bigotry to have everyone remain equal in the end, but eventually it will probably come full circle once again into bigotry, because that's what life is, working hard for something that will just eventually be washed to time with the same problem you "fixed" once again in place.
+Pseudo Lain a revolution for an authoritarian government definitely. (truly) Libertarian revolutions only failed due to more powerful nations destroying them and shit. The shitty stuff that happened inside these revolutions was due to being birthed amongst chaos and war. Orwell would understand lol. Homage to Catalonia is dope.
+Kenny Floyd wouldn't the American's "Revolution" only be truly complete when they install a monarchy, begin taxation without representation and drive on the left side of the road.
This is the only channel that I'm subscribed to that I actually check out every week. Keep up the good work! Off to look into my Thug Notes t-shirt. ;)
Adding some clarifications to the content discussed, it is urgent to point out that the “success” of Stalin - the man who used to boast of having taken the U.R.S.S. "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just one generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev proceeded more quickly with the process of political openness in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as was fully proven by the failed coup attempt. in the USSR in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself. Having restored several freedoms (creed, expression, organization, party, etc.) that had been abolished in his country since the time of Vladimir Lenin, Gorbachev's opening process can be defined as a kind of attempt to "deleninize" the U.R.S.S. While Gorbachev went ahead with his policy of "one step forward" (towards capitalism) and two steps back (back to socialism), his Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: he prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting capitalism in practice) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows: “At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is just their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have operated until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. '* By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it! What has always happened to human society since the time of chipped stone is that technological development does not require human beings to dedicate themselves to certain activities, which start to be carried out in a more intensive way, with increased productivity of decline in the contingent of hand. -employed labor, eliminating certain jobs with the aid of the developed technology. But the jobs eliminated are offset by the increased employment of labor in more technologically developed sectors. This is basically what happened when the advent of the Industrial Revolution helped to increase the productivity of the extractive and agricultural sector - notably from the advent of agro-industry - while reducing the need for the employment of human labor in these sectors. , which makes up the primary sector of the economy. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution moved the economically active population to the secondary sector of the economy (handicrafts, industry and manufacturing). This process was first noticed by the Austrian economist Joseph Alois Schumepeter, who defined it as a kind of "creative destruction" - that is: technological progress destroys job opportunities in some sectors, but also creates new opportunities in other sectors! The problem is that Schumpeter was a pessimist, who detested the Soviet regime, but strongly believed that he embodied the "future of humanity". Schumpeter did not realize that he had found the key to explain why capitalism does not self-destruct in an immense crisis of overproduction, as K. Marx predicted it would happen: instead, it evolves, creating the conditions for the overcoming of technological civilization. industrial and the subsequent advent of a technological civilization of a post-industrial character, in the same way as the Industrial Revolution had already done with the agricultural or pre-industrial civilization. Therefore, we can conclude that from the invention of the first chipped stone tools to artificial intelligence and space travel, human history is not driven by a notorious and highly questionable "class struggle", but by technological progress: since it discovered how handling fire and producing tools, including the wheel, human evolution has become more technological and less biological, unlike other animals. The main reason for this phenomenon is that, with the help of the technology we have created, the human race has gradually become less subject to the limitations imposed by nature. It was by obstructing this mechanism of human evolution - disregarding the importance of maximizing profit in an industrial technological society - that the so-called "socialist mode of production" proved unable not only to compete with capitalism, but even to survive. Therefore, it is easy to deduce that this is a mere question of TIME until the so-called "21st century socialism" in Venezuela ends up following the same path as its counterpart of the last century. However, if there are still economic reforms, it is possible that it will survive for some time. To paraphrase Marx once again, it can be said with certainty that socialism is a system full of contradictions, which bears the germ of its own destruction: it is the system that digs its own grave! * Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Teoria e processo histórico da revolução social, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection , História, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Edição comemorativa do centenário da morte de Karl Marx. Obs .: Adaptation made from a text of my authorship published in issue nº 72 of the Magazine of the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property - RABPI in September 2014.
Karl Marx’s materialist conception of history WAS driven by technology though. Technology and resources are what make it a “materialist” analysis of history. Governments can prolong the self-destruction of capitalism but they cannot put it off forever. Capitalism nearly DID collapse in a massive crisis of overproduction in the early 1930’s, but leaders were able to prolong it by a hundred years by implementing Keynesianism deficit spending, something Marx could not have predicted. And it is a genius system: the difference between workers’ low wages, and the high price of goods being produced, is filled by fictitious money. But now, we are returning to crises of overproduction in the form of debt crises. There is not enough working-class income, and therefore not enough consumer demand to spend on the massive surplus of technologically advanced goods being produced. And the declining rate of profit is ensuring that companies squeeze their workers even harder and drive their wages down even further to maximize profit. That is THEIR most rational move. But that can only continue to a point, where the debt-to-GDP ratio increases exponentially just to prevent the economy imploding, and the entire economy is built on top of imaginary money. On air. And that has already begun. Check out the US Congressional Budget Office’s Long Term Budget Outlook. The debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to expand exponentially over the coming decades, which is exactly what we would expect to see if the capitalist value creation system were suffering a meltdown on a fundamental level. Inflation will accelerate, because the qualities that give money its value in the first place (as a store of labor value) are disintegrating as technological productivity accelerates.
I grew up in the hood and hate how in college I'm suppose to act like a white dude from the suburbs, i will not conform you can still be a thug and be smart! Thanks thug notes!
These are the most engaging book analyses videos I've watched this far. Also, anyone that watched this instead of reading, I just wanna say that you should at least listen to the audiobook because this book is super important and gives a lot of perspectives on stuff.
I had to read this book in the 9th grade for English. I was a hot blooded kid, given to exercise my anger into some very complex, deep, and thorough essays. I always scored high but when I got to this book and I started reading it, it kick started a kind of self revolution between my temper and my reason. While I appreciate the book and its ability to maintain its relevance since its publishing, I have one issue with it, the one character which to this day may be the character I hate most in literature. Benjamin the fucking Donkey. When I first read the book I hated it, but failed to adequately articulate why I was so angry and depressed by it. So I read it again, crushing through the book, crying when Boxer... well... you know, and generally despising Napoleon and every single character that allowed him to run the farm. Still I couldn't quite figure it out. It took me that third read through for me to finally realize that it was Benjamin. Fucking. God. Damn. Benjamin. That. Fucking. Piece. Of. Shit. Donkey. This cynic did nothing, contributed nothing, but reminded us that as the smartest animal on the farm, inaction and apathy foster the greatest breed of contempt. A man who is happy to let the world pass him by without fighting injustice, without opposing the harshness, contributes to the death ever still. A tyrant is a man who is evil because through conditioning or birth he knows only evil. A Good Man may be tempted and falter, but through conviction alone he can remain Good. But a neutral man... one not who knows no better, but who understands Virtue and Vice and does NOTHING, is as much a detriment to society as is the wicked. He was the one who could read. He was the one who knew that they where changing their constitution, he was the one who knew what had happened to Snowball. HE WAS THE ONE WHO KNEW WHAT IT MEANT WHEN BAXTER WAS GOING TO THE "VET". He did NOTHING. A Greedy pig with cruelty and malice in his heart offends me less then a GODLESS PIECE OF SHIT DONKEY who failed to resemble, even for a moment, a decent individual. Fuck that Donkey. Burn in Hell Benjamin. Burn in fucking Hell. BTW I never really did get over my temper.
Everything you say is on point. I wish I could use this in my High School English Class, but due to the expletives, I can not show it. I hope in the future, you can omit that one aspect of your material so that I can post your amazing work.
What a witty, cool and truly informative and concise video. I really wished my teacher showed this to us at school. Day before my Literature exam, but better late than never! Thanks!
many interpret this book as communism=bad capitalism=good but in reality the situations and flaws can also be applied to capitalist societies as well. while reading i was able to draw parallels with the american government.
Two things the Soviet Union never really had a heavy emphasis upon, not in the way they think. Yes, state media exists, just as in every country on earth, but overall it was much more because of desire for self-preservation rather than legitimate greed.
I read this book my sophomore year so I never thought about it being a representation of the Soviet Union. With the analyzes it does make sense that the "Animal Farm" can relate to the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. "Power can corrupt your mind."
I'm so torn. On one hand this would be great to introduce my 10th grade class to animal farm. On the other, if my department head hears the language you use, and that I allowed it, the animals in animal farm, won't be the only things getting f&%$#@d.
Come on! Do that please, I am sure people would show some sympathy for this guy. If not, they are not players. Students love teachers like you who thinks outside the box sometimes :)
Trust me they already know those words,if ou will show them this video then you will become their favourite teacher,the problem with most teachers(espcially teachers who teach literature) is that th ey present it in a very blunt and boring way,that's the reason almost everyone that I know dislike this class,but if you will present it to them like that and see them as equal(by using the same language you would usually use with your friends but not students) then they will respect you.
Little known fact: Karl Marx predicted exactly this, 26 years before Lenin was even born. This is what he said would happen if people tried to skip economic development by jumping straight to communal ownership while still under capitalism: ”The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism-since it negates the personality of man in every sphere-is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited, standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital-by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality-labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.” -- Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 In other words, you cannot end the capitalist mode of production by banning private property. Ideology is not what determines the dominant mode of production. Technology is. Trying to ban private property only changes the owners from private capitalists to the state, which exploits labor on the national level. In other words, state capitalism.
Sanders is a social democrat. He is not a communist or a socialist. He is a Liberal Reformist. The criticisms in this book do not apply to Sanders. Orwell would criticise Sanders though, but differently. Speaking of which. You do know that Orwell, the author of this book, was a socialist right? The man was practically an Anarchist. He supported the idea of Communism. He just hated the authoritarian socialism of the Soviet Union, and considered it a perversion of socialism, similar to Trotskyism. Which Orwell expressed sympathy for. The man fought for communism in Spain for fucks sake. He wanted to join the Anarchist trade union CNT as well.
+Phase_TV he does say he's a socialist. But that doesn't mean he is. He never advocates for workers control of the means of production, just a liberal welfare state. This is very common among liberals, they misunderstand what socialism is, thinking it's just statist shit. Anarchism and Socialism is not on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they are both about equality and workers control (well that's debatable, depends on the anarchist you're talking to, but the most prevalent Anarchist ideology is Anarcho-communism, so for the sake of simplifying things, it is) The spectrum of left being more government and right being less is inaccurate and frustrating. The politics compass is more accurate, though the quiz is dumb. There are many different kinds of Socialist ideologies. Some are soviet style, some are democratic and some are libertarian, like Anarchism. They all desire the end goal of communism, which is a stateless classless society, which is what (mostAnarchists want.
+Phase_TV seriously, the politically correct term for Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism. Two of the big granddaddies of Anarchism (Bakunin and Kroptokin) lived at the same time as Karl Marx and mostly agreed with him, though critical of his statist politics. To quote Bakunin, "liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". He also said (as I recall) "put the most ardent Marxist in the position of absolute power and in less then a week, he'll be worse the Tsar himself. Funny he chose Tsar as an example. Prophetic.... But yeah, tl;dr anarchism has been socialist since it's been an ideology. Well maybe Proudhon would kinda disagree but he was still kinda socialist. Fun fact, the person who coined the term Libertarian was an Anarcho-communist. It's only recently, and mostly in English speaking countries, that it's meant free market capitalism. IIRC libertarian is still associated with Anarchism in France.
My personal favorite point to take from Animal Farm is how Boxer is treated. He is loyal, works harder than anyone, an inspiration to others. He works so hard he is crippled, and he is assured he will go to his just reward. That reward? The glue factory. Those in power will use you up and if they can get a couple pennies for your corpse they'll do that too.
you just explained why socialism doesn't work
yes, so why give the corrupt humans the power to decide your fate? in a true capitalist country, Boxer would've been a millionaire
Robert Turner
Orwell was a communist, one of the important things to note is that at the end of the book the animals are suffering just as much as at the beginning. Orwell is saying Stalinism is just as bad as capitalism, not that capitalism is good
Orwell was not a communist but a socialist. His book 1984 clearly shows his opposition to communism.
Thug notes back at it again saving my English grade
Same🙌🏽😆
Salt daaamn, thug notes
Lol I always wish I had this back in highschool. We only had spark cliff notes haha. I would have loved for this to be a thing back then.
Spark Notes is way more informative, condensing a whole book into 4 mins eliminates A LOT of detail
agreed but if you have a quick summary assignment or that good shit this will take care of it
"The flags maybe different, but the methods are the same"
- Victor Reznov
+John Casey One of my favourite quotes of all time.
+Aguila701 Which was pretty much the method proposed by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. It preaches violence to get things done, and the hate an enemy.
Aye
+Maxime Proulx Marx also encourages Democracy and it wasn't until Lenin's revolution that the concept of a "vanguard" came to be. In fact, Animal Farm isn't even pro Capitalism. It was Orwell critiquing the Bolsheviks. He even literally made them pigs lol.
Marxism-Leninism isn't the only form of Marxism
+TJ he didn't hate the bolsheviks, he hated stalin. he fought in a trotskyist battalion in the spanish civil war so i'd say he was pretty socialist
"four legs good, two legs bad"
+retro junkie "four legs good,two legs better"ya fucking dumb ass, it even says it at the end.
Napoleon you crooked ass pig!
EXCUUUSE me sir Im a little baby boy and my momma luvs me plenty! I was just makin a comment in a satirically rude manner ironically, so calm down continue eating and sleeping and keeping yourself living healthy, proud of you! Dont let your dreams be dreams and buy your mom a house and buy your whole family houses.
Innit tho..
Napoleon is always right!
R.I.P. Boxer.. i feel the pain to this day.
feels bad man, i pained me how hard my boy boxer worked, all for nothing. every pages i flipped i hoped it would start with "one day snowball returned"
King K well i didn't know that, RIP my bo snowball the realest OG to ever G
aaron tatro at first boxer's dead did make me feel bad but soon i was just like 'meh' since it was boxer's stupidity that killed him
It's not really his stupidity, but a case of loyalty to power. Or in this case, a loyalty to a corrupt power that was misusing the animals for their own selfish gain.
@Bumblebot 245:
Boxer was in fact loyal, but not to the current power (i.e., Napoleon). Death to Napoleon!
He really makes it clear that a lack of education and critical thinking is part of why the pigs gained ultimate power over the animals. Only a few animals could read. Boxer tried, but wasn't able to and was more interested in loyalty to the cause. The sheep represented patriotism, to me. Shouting over all the other animals when they made any attempt at dissent. Benjamin could read and understood what was happening, but he wouldn't take a stand and in the end lost one of his best friends. All the animals just accept it when the pigs tell them they're basically too stupid to remember what really happened or what was when the commandments are changed. I saw a lot of similarities between the animals and things here in the U.S.
If you really want an eye opener, read Gustave Gilbert's interview of Herman Goering before the Nuremberg Trials. When Gilbert argues that what happened in Germany could never happen in the u.s. or u.s.s.r., Goering literally gives him a five step recipe at control:
"[...]Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Potato is talking about politics right now. People are hideously stupid and are making decisions based on media manipulation, loyalty to their party, patriotism, ignorance, and those are are aware of what's going on plan to leave the country rather than do something to prevent the country going to shit.
The founders were right!
I think the sheep were an allegory for party loyalists in Russia (and later China) who turned up at meetings for the express purpose of shouting their enthusiasm for the leader whenever somebody with a different idea tried to speak.
If you cannot read you can't think and if you can't think others will think for you
-george orwell
"Orwell droppin' some mad allegory"
In less than five minutes, you've explained everything that my English teacher took five weeks to say. I can't believe I haven't heard of you sooner!!
***** don't make any connections to the Russian revolution? Why the hell did they have you read it lol
+Robert Scott because it would emply that the revoltuion would have been morr successful if Trotsky was Lenins succesor. and thoughts like that are illegal in the heart of imperialism. i wasnt tought about the russia. revolution allegory either. we just read it, talked about corruption and moved on. i do like how thug notes tocuhed that things started going south when materials were becoming scarce and they had to turn to foreign policy for help. like Trotsky said, communism can onlyngo into full effect when it is destroyed on a global scale. Animal Farm is anti-Stalin not anti-communist,but schools wouldnt be allowed to teach that for obviously
+LionWingenedMunki39 because critical thinking would lead to obvious answers such as, America and its capitalist iron fist is the reason for most of the bullshit going on arouns the world
@@TheRedPlumbob He summarized in two minutes, and explained it in two mins. This dude isn't leaving out detail.
Revolution ends where it begins. Wow
***** out of all the examples you could have given, you chose feminism
You can't be serious, you really think you are being oppressed by women? get over you frail sense of masculinity
***** Yeah, we're at the middle of it, right between "women are oppressed" and "women are oppressors". That's why right now, women earn exactly the same as men, popular media shows women as main characters just as much as men, we have as just as many female leaders as men, and there aren't major parts of the world where women are treated like second-class citizens.
"The oppressed become the oppressors" misses any amount of nuance Orwell was communicating in the novel, and your analogy is massively off-base.
***** oh ffs stop lying. It's a crime to lie in a day and age where they can be disproven easily.
that's why its called revolution. it revolves back to the start. insurrection>>>>
Feminism is about oppressing men apparently.
"Pig Brother is watching you."
Sums up Animal Farm and 1984 in a few words.
No it doesn't
Both written by the same author
pig brother moment 🐽
Well both books includes themes of power corruption.
Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, and I would add an Anarchist Leftist. Its amazing how he points out that the worst thing that can happen to Communism is to become Capitalism. Basically he equates a Stalin dictator with a capitalist..
He clearly believed in this idea that the workers should own and control the factory, because he describes the Animal farm as being more successful more advanced than the capitalist system, and workers work with more passion (like they work for themselves).
Its amazing how Americans miss these aspects.. He basicaly was a Trotskyist.. (a Communist arguing nobody should be a ruler. arguing against Representative Democracy basically)
These reviews are so much funnier if you've read the book
no shucking fit
@@tigernikki101 shut up
Lol. "The book was much better than the movie"😂
Ik, Ilike to watch these after I read the book
Surprised you didn't mention the Donkey and his cryptic message "Donkeys live a long time".
Pretty sure that means something like this had happened before and that revolution is an endless cycle.
could be about the period of detente
Bob Feen the donkey knew best. He figured that it would all be the same whether the pigs were in control or the humans
Benjamin the donkey represents i think the modern nihilist.
Rodrigo Jimenez Aleman deep
Yeah he was my favorite character in the book!
This story goes deeper. It isn't just about communism. It's about human nature in general and how a corrupt governing body will always take charge and enslave their fellow man.
+Molly Madley That was specified in the video lol.
+Aguila701 Well not really... Sure Old Major may have been the one to throw these events into motion, but he only had the best in mind. All he wanted was for all animals to be truly equal. He wanted his fellow comrades to live in the Utopia he dreamed of. Unfortunately, he came up with a system that just doesn't work. Animalism (Communism) is basically a society without the use of currency. Everybody works their job and then the government distributes everything the people need. Only problem with that is when you give that much power to a single dictator, they will use it to oppress the population and further their own needs. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
+Cristopher Johnson Animalism was meant to represent Stalinist distortion of Communism, Orwell was a Socialist who fought with Socialists and Communists in the Spanish Civil War.
Absolutely. I'm not calling Communism bad. In a way, its supposed to be a utopia, except it will never work. Sure you can write the ideas down on a paper but when they are applied to real life, it gets twisted by the one in charge. In the beginning of the story Old Major introduces true Animalism. At first, it represents actual communism. Over the course of the story, animalism is slowly twisted by Napoleon into a whole new system of government. The original Animalism was a utopia, but it was changed to have a negative connotation.
+Cristopher Johnson Communist theory was never about utopia. The characterisation of anything as utopian and not scientific is nonsense. The issue arises in the Soviet Union where the purpose of the Revolution became undone by the bureaucracy and power-grabbing of the leadership which in turn led to reppression of opposing ideas. Animal Farm in itself isn't perfect but commies should take some serious consideration of it's implications about democracy and organisation after the revolution.
As a teenager, I have to say that this account is such a great idea! A lot of the other kids in my school would never read books like this, but when I showed them this video they were entertained and incredibly excited to read the book! The analysis and summary of the books are well thought out, and introduce concepts that many high school students don't really learn in high school. The mix of pop culture (thug) and academia (notes) is very well done. The comedy is not distracting from the important motifs and themes that are so thoroughly explained. Honestly, I have to be grateful that youtube gives the opportunity for talented people like Wisecrack to do such amazing things and provide amazing educational material that teenagers will actually enjoy watching. I am actually very disappointed by some of these comments made by teachers, who clearly don't understand that this is what teenagers are entertained by. Btw, I'd love to see some Jane Austen up in here, G.
I did not expect this to be helpful, but I think it just increased my understanding of Animal Farm fivefold.
can I get to know u?
Sure!
I am so lonely
dfg gf DA FUCK
Plot twist: Major foresaw everything that would happen, and started the revolt so that his fellow pigs could be in control.
Eyyyy inception, cus he's a wise all knowing pig O.o
Lmomjian I never thought about that. But if you think about it, there really probably were communist revolutionaries who just wanted to gain power, and used marxism as a tool.
Rick Apocalypse
For sure there were. I hadn't thought about applying the concept back to real-life events, but it certainly fits.
That wouldn't work irl. Marx was German. If anything, he would have sparked a revolution for germany, not russia
+Lmomjian in reality Lenin started the revolt himself, succeeded, but died in 1924, unable to prevent Stalin`s dictatorship. Lenin did not like Stalin, khew that he is a rough guy who never bent, and offered his mates to elect Trotskiy as the leader, but failed. Once started, the revolution is uncontrollable.
I swear, if I pass my English Literature GCSE next year, with help from this; I'll buy a Thug t-shirt.
me too
yessss😂
Same 😂
Ya!
so, did you pass?
Moral of the story: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
*General Shepherd voice*
That revolution bit at the end just blew my mind o_O
yea, it made me start seeing shit
In 1984 there's this book of Goldstein that says exactly that. Got 3 classes, low middle and high. The whole of human history involves class struggle, with the middle class manipulating the lower class to overthrow the high class so they can become the oppressors. After a while the bits of the low class that benefited from this struggle and the dissents from the high class got to the middle class and again manipulated the lower class to overthrow the higher class, and it goes on forever.
@@ericklopes4046 woah. I mean it makes sense. The book immediatly shows the inequality among humans in a second. The pigs learn to read and write, they are naturally more adapt at such work than say the horses, but the horses are more suited to physical labor. The part where it breaks down is that the pigs begin growing arrogant of their intellect and seeing others who don't possess it as less equal. They don't realize that the plan for the farm and the reality of that plan are two sides of the same coin, no one more important than the other.
@Mark Anthony Yes. What's more intriguing is, if you delve into other Orwell's books (specially Way to Wigan Pier) he makes his case for socialism, yet the very ideology that is described as evil in 1984 is English Socialism.
As for innate differences in work potential among different animals, Marx accounted for that and said you shouldn't set total equality as a viable political goal. A man shouldn't simply be entitled to the product of his own labour.
You can say Animal Farm had everything to work out great, and it did for a while. The problem's that even after seizing the means of production, someone still had to manage things (pigs). Shit went downhill when they managed to deceive and excluded other animals from the decision making process.
Orwell's point was to emphasize the democracy both Soviet Union and Fascist regimes rejected:
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” - George Orwell.
The similarities between Animal Farm and the Soviet Union are staggering:
1. Both lacked the advancements in production methods brought by capitalism, being mostly rural and feudal, and so they had to build modern infrastructure as revolution established itself.
2. The old pig who died can be compared to Lenin, who also died during political turmoil and advised not to pick Stalin as party leader.
3. The pig who got shit together and helped to pave the way for the revolution was persecuted in Animal Farm, he can be compared to Trotsky, who was also killed by his fellow soviets and finally
4. The pig who concentrated power in his hands, idolised himself and promoted purges can be compared to Stalin.
Orwell adopts many Marxist views (such as that of class struggle/thesis vs antithesis and synthesis) and yet is critical of the Soviet Union and orthodox Marxists due to their dogmatism.
Despite of his political alignment with Marxists, he still feared a worldwide dichotomy dominated by tyranny, using the evildoings of one side to justify the other and vice-versa.
Here's a quote from that Wigan Pier one:
"And all the while everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already.
The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system.
Yet the fact that we have got to face is that Socialism is not establishing itself. Instead of going forward, the cause of Socialism is visibly going back.
At this moment Socialists almost everywhere are in retreat before the onslaught of Fascism, and events are moving at terrible speed."
@@ericklopes4046 How would that system work? And how does it differ from the capitalism we have now? Like seriously I don't understand what a total socialist society, or socialist democracy would look like.
Man I haven't thought about Thug Notes in years. Bring these back! They were amazing!
These are spectacular. To concisely summarize legendary works of literature using language that everyone can easily understand is a rare skill. Outstanding.
I'm surprised that the crow Moses and it's representation of religion in the USSR is never mentioned.
Lol when I read it I thought he represented rasputin
Assassin4nolan He can also represent propaganda as well
+Jadyn Lawson Squealer is the representation of Propaganda. Moses is a representation of how Stalin used religious values to keep people working.
religion actually had a very important role in communism because although stalin benefited from having religion to pacify the proletariat, he also believed religion distracted people from they're faith in the communist party, placing it instead in idols, which would perhaps not motivate them to work as hard for him as he deemed fit. the east berliners were also strong catholics, and disliked communism for this reason as it portrayed stalin and the communist system above they're god. so just as in reality moses and religion are both warily left to they're ways, but with a wary caution.
I thought it represented the fact that religion was one of the first thing to be sling out of the USSR, but when people’s faith in communism began to falter, religion began creeping back, much like Moses.
I think I vaguely remember an animated movie based on this book. If my memory serves, it much darker than the book. Like when Snowball was chased off the farm, you hear him making panicked squeals not long after he goes off-screen, and you see a crow watching. Which seems to hint that he was brutally killed by the dogs. In fact, I think the crow appears every time someone dies/gets killed. And I think the movie ended with the other animals rebelling against the pigs and their "more equal" status and I think the crow appears in that scene too.
I never saw the animated movie, but I did see the movie movie with animated mouths and stuff for them. They even show Old Major's severed head in a fridge after the people flee and the animals start exploring the house. It was horrifying!
***** Was it Macabre? Because there's quite a few movies that have a severed head in a fridge.
SaiyanGamer95 Oh, I found it. It was the 1999 Animal Farm movie. I'm actually going to rewatch it since I saw it over 15 years ago lol
***** Oh. So we saw two different adaptations of the same book. Yours was live-action while mine was animated.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Animal Farm was published before Stalin had Trotsky murdered, so it makes more sense for newer adaptations to have Snowball mauled to death by the dogs. Even necessary.
when you put a revolution as something ending where it began i just sat their for 30 seconds letting that sink in
Me too. That usage of the word has become so ingrained in culture as moving from one thing to another that when you consider it meaning the same as all the other uses of the word revolution, it's a simple yet paradigm shattering realization.
spainalmate69 I mean kinda. It comes from the late latin “revolutio” meaning a turn around whereas the other sense comes from the early “revolvere” meaning to roll back or restore.
Yeah but, it would be hard to claim that all revolts did not lead to eventual progress.
The analysis is legit and the whole video is entertaining, please keep them coming.
Thank you so much for doing these videos! You have really sparked my interest in the classics. I'm learning to really appreciate the lessons that are hidden in these stories that I took for granted in high school. Please don't stop anytime soon!
“Wut it dew, comrades?!” 🤣 my new greeting to everybody I see!
Yet another great video. Sharp, funny, and full of insight. This is a great work you're undertaking here, man. Looking forward to whatever you decide to tackle next.
I was thinking about Boxer the horse who worked so hard that he ended up hurting himself and was taken to the 'vet.' You learn that he was actually sent to the glue factory. That made me think that Boxer representing the working man had to work past their breaking point to keep things together. Like how glue does. It might just be coincidence but it makes sense.
Do Fight Club. you could go into analysis about it's criticism of consumerism in it's time and masculine insecurity the narrator faces.
too bad fight club sucks
elias shammas BLASPHEMY!
+Артём Водоватов ∆∆∆ what he said lol
And the criticism of hyper masculinity. People always seem to forget that.
HisNameIsRobertPaulson how is 2015 going
I stumbled upon this segment (I think the first one I watched was the Gatsby video) after waking up at 2am. It is now 4:16 and I can't stop watching them 😂 I love the accurate ass, succinct summarization of all of these books. Especially while my boyfriend I've read them to is laughing in the background saying "would have taken way less time and effort if you'd have just been played me these"
One point I love is how Major said that Boxer what not work to his death under Animalism like he would under Jones ,but thats exactly what would happen under Napoleon
This book is now more relevant than ever.
Forget Trump. This book is relevant today in regards to the modern charlatans who use the language of "equality" to push for the destruction of all social norms, and for some people to be more equal than others...
I asked and you delivered! Thanks for the hook up Sparky Sweets, PHD. Like watching my English paper from college come to real life. Mad respect, I told all my boys that they need to get on your channel. Thug Notes is the truth!
II have been watching some of these videos for the first time ever and I enjoy them a lot. Instantly subscribed! I hope to see more exquisite content from Thug Notes. Thank you.
As an English teacher, I love this. I just wish it didn't have cussing in it so I could show this to my middle school students.
i dont even have a paper due or anything i just rather watch this than read books😂
I don't have a paper due either, I'm just reading the book for the heck of it.
i don't even have a paper due or anything i just read the book then watched this
I don't have a paper due I just happen to enjoy classic literature.
I'm not even in school anymore but reading these books make you understand humanity and history.
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I HAD A PAPER ON THIS 8 YEARS AGO!?
This is quite literally the best book analysis I’ve seen.
I would buy Thug Notes on dvd. This is the epitome of what UA-cam should be. Brilliant content!
Bro same!
0:13 "We going HAM with Animal Farm"
I see what you did there
Perfect, like an essay
can I get to know you
i literally own or read EVERY book this guy has reviewed
Man Wisecrack y'all saved my ass on Pride & Prejudice. Today I'm making a book list to read over the summer before college, and watch each Thug Notes when i'm finished. Thank you guys so much for reviving my want and need to read!.
The character acting in these videos is amazing. Great work.
The revolution thing blew my mind o.o
Just want to let it out after reading it. I know many stories about bosses nowadays who just like those pigs in Animal Farm.
They promise the life will be better and "both of us aim to a noble goals", and the employees work for themselves. But the bosses keep getting richer but the working conditions of the employees stay the same. Every "improvement" is not for the sake of being more productive in order to make the working life easier, but just to have time to milk for more work. I have heard so much in the media lately about a quote of some rich presidence, that "if you want to be poor, don't bother and rest at home at the weekend" and it makes me so mad. That the minimum salary is not enough for pay the bills, only enough when you work overtime. It's scary. Not only about politic, but everytime when you have power and greed at hand.
The irony is PRAVDA mean TRUTH.
as a child in the 80s, I saw a little something of this newspaper but the next day or so, trying to remember the name I thought it was Prada...and that was years before I knew Prada was a clothing brand
I really enjoy dude's commentaries. He makes it all easy, genius!
I will never forget that moment when reading where I realised what was happening to Boxer. 😭
Just found Thug Notes. Now love Thug Notes.
When I had to read this in highschool it just made me really depressed
Veronica Hill ,I'm pretty sure I'm the only teen who read this by choice, lol
Good, it should have
I thought Animal Farm was about a nice little farm where the animals lived adventures and such. Then I read it and realized how wrong I was...
I was fucking 10.
Why did mommy leave books like Crime and Punishment and Animal Farm and all the original Brüder Grimm tales with their bloody details near me?!!!!!
I'm sorry dude
oh wait tbh I'm not your mom is great
@@mobydick3769 hahaha, pretty much the same thing happened to me too XD One day my mom brought me a pile of library books I could read when I was 11 and one of the books was the Animal Farm. I picked it up thinking that it is some kind of fun story about animals in a farm... Well I wasnt that wrong in the first place, just that I never realized that the book was about communism until I picked that book up again when I was 16.
American Gods by Neil Gaiman, please.
SesshReincarnated shiiit how’s 2014
@@nobudoo9709 , better and worse
Man i want to thank you for saving my life. Also thanks to Thug from turning Animal farm from a boring book to a book with laughter. I personally liked it when he had said "Snowball had is - butt- out of russia" Keep up the good work!
Thug Notes you are SUPERIOR with these uploads!
"A revolution ending where it began" holy shit that's deep... And... True! For the US at least. Maybe. I don't know about other countries like Panama, South Africa, India, etc.
It's very true in the case of the Soviet Union, and it's sad to say that it looks like America is getting closer to that, (with trump in the lead) but I don't think you can at least say that about South Africa. They overcame racism and bigotry to have everyone remain equal in the end, but eventually it will probably come full circle once again into bigotry, because that's what life is, working hard for something that will just eventually be washed to time with the same problem you "fixed" once again in place.
+Kenny Floyd
It's true for every revolution
+Pseudo Lain a revolution for an authoritarian government definitely. (truly) Libertarian revolutions only failed due to more powerful nations destroying them and shit. The shitty stuff that happened inside these revolutions was due to being birthed amongst chaos and war.
Orwell would understand lol. Homage to Catalonia is dope.
omega1397
"muh TRUE revolution!"
oh fuck off you idiot
+Kenny Floyd wouldn't the American's "Revolution" only be truly complete when they install a monarchy, begin taxation without representation and drive on the left side of the road.
This video got me an A in my English Literature exam
That was very clever about the word revolution. Thanks m8!
Maybe the best show on UA-cam.
This is the only channel that I'm subscribed to that I actually check out every week. Keep up the good work! Off to look into my Thug Notes t-shirt. ;)
Adding some clarifications to the content discussed, it is urgent to point out that the “success” of Stalin - the man who used to boast of having taken the U.R.S.S. "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just one generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev proceeded more quickly with the process of political openness in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as was fully proven by the failed coup attempt. in the USSR in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself. Having restored several freedoms (creed, expression, organization, party, etc.) that had been abolished in his country since the time of Vladimir Lenin, Gorbachev's opening process can be defined as a kind of attempt to "deleninize" the U.R.S.S.
While Gorbachev went ahead with his policy of "one step forward" (towards capitalism) and two steps back (back to socialism), his Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: he prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting capitalism in practice) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows:
“At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is just their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have operated until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. '*
By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it!
What has always happened to human society since the time of chipped stone is that technological development does not require human beings to dedicate themselves to certain activities, which start to be carried out in a more intensive way, with increased productivity of decline in the contingent of hand. -employed labor, eliminating certain jobs with the aid of the developed technology. But the jobs eliminated are offset by the increased employment of labor in more technologically developed sectors.
This is basically what happened when the advent of the Industrial Revolution helped to increase the productivity of the extractive and agricultural sector - notably from the advent of agro-industry - while reducing the need for the employment of human labor in these sectors. , which makes up the primary sector of the economy. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution moved the economically active population to the secondary sector of the economy (handicrafts, industry and manufacturing).
This process was first noticed by the Austrian economist Joseph Alois Schumepeter, who defined it as a kind of "creative destruction" - that is: technological progress destroys job opportunities in some sectors, but also creates new opportunities in other sectors!
The problem is that Schumpeter was a pessimist, who detested the Soviet regime, but strongly believed that he embodied the "future of humanity". Schumpeter did not realize that he had found the key to explain why capitalism does not self-destruct in an immense crisis of overproduction, as K. Marx predicted it would happen: instead, it evolves, creating the conditions for the overcoming of technological civilization. industrial and the subsequent advent of a technological civilization of a post-industrial character, in the same way as the Industrial Revolution had already done with the agricultural or pre-industrial civilization.
Therefore, we can conclude that from the invention of the first chipped stone tools to artificial intelligence and space travel, human history is not driven by a notorious and highly questionable "class struggle", but by technological progress: since it discovered how handling fire and producing tools, including the wheel, human evolution has become more technological and less biological, unlike other animals. The main reason for this phenomenon is that, with the help of the technology we have created, the human race has gradually become less subject to the limitations imposed by nature. It was by obstructing this mechanism of human evolution - disregarding the importance of maximizing profit in an industrial technological society - that the so-called "socialist mode of production" proved unable not only to compete with capitalism, but even to survive. Therefore, it is easy to deduce that this is a mere question of TIME until the so-called "21st century socialism" in Venezuela ends up following the same path as its counterpart of the last century. However, if there are still economic reforms, it is possible that it will survive for some time.
To paraphrase Marx once again, it can be said with certainty that socialism is a system full of contradictions, which bears the germ of its own destruction: it is the system that digs its own grave!
* Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Teoria e processo histórico da revolução social, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection , História, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Edição comemorativa do centenário da morte de Karl Marx.
Obs .: Adaptation made from a text of my authorship published in issue nº 72 of the Magazine of the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property - RABPI in September 2014.
Karl Marx’s materialist conception of history WAS driven by technology though. Technology and resources are what make it a “materialist” analysis of history.
Governments can prolong the self-destruction of capitalism but they cannot put it off forever. Capitalism nearly DID collapse in a massive crisis of overproduction in the early 1930’s, but leaders were able to prolong it by a hundred years by implementing Keynesianism deficit spending, something Marx could not have predicted. And it is a genius system: the difference between workers’ low wages, and the high price of goods being produced, is filled by fictitious money.
But now, we are returning to crises of overproduction in the form of debt crises. There is not enough working-class income, and therefore not enough consumer demand to spend on the massive surplus of technologically advanced goods being produced. And the declining rate of profit is ensuring that companies squeeze their workers even harder and drive their wages down even further to maximize profit. That is THEIR most rational move. But that can only continue to a point, where the debt-to-GDP ratio increases exponentially just to prevent the economy imploding, and the entire economy is built on top of imaginary money. On air.
And that has already begun. Check out the US Congressional Budget Office’s Long Term Budget Outlook. The debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to expand exponentially over the coming decades, which is exactly what we would expect to see if the capitalist value creation system were suffering a meltdown on a fundamental level. Inflation will accelerate, because the qualities that give money its value in the first place (as a store of labor value) are disintegrating as technological productivity accelerates.
This video helped me pass my sophomore year.
I grew up in the hood and hate how in college I'm suppose to act like a white dude from the suburbs, i will not conform you can still be a thug and be smart! Thanks thug notes!
These are the most engaging book analyses videos I've watched this far. Also, anyone that watched this instead of reading, I just wanna say that you should at least listen to the audiobook because this book is super important and gives a lot of perspectives on stuff.
jesus christ i love this man. it's 5 in the morning and i've got a book report due today about a book i don't even have
Hey, Can you do one for Dracula (The original novel)
Boxer was the realist homie 😩🙌🏼
I had to read this book in the 9th grade for English. I was a hot blooded kid, given to exercise my anger into some very complex, deep, and thorough essays. I always scored high but when I got to this book and I started reading it, it kick started a kind of self revolution between my temper and my reason. While I appreciate the book and its ability to maintain its relevance since its publishing, I have one issue with it, the one character which to this day may be the character I hate most in literature.
Benjamin the fucking Donkey. When I first read the book I hated it, but failed to adequately articulate why I was so angry and depressed by it. So I read it again, crushing through the book, crying when Boxer... well... you know, and generally despising Napoleon and every single character that allowed him to run the farm. Still I couldn't quite figure it out. It took me that third read through for me to finally realize that it was Benjamin. Fucking. God. Damn. Benjamin. That. Fucking. Piece. Of. Shit. Donkey. This cynic did nothing, contributed nothing, but reminded us that as the smartest animal on the farm, inaction and apathy foster the greatest breed of contempt. A man who is happy to let the world pass him by without fighting injustice, without opposing the harshness, contributes to the death ever still. A tyrant is a man who is evil because through conditioning or birth he knows only evil. A Good Man may be tempted and falter, but through conviction alone he can remain Good. But a neutral man... one not who knows no better, but who understands Virtue and Vice and does NOTHING, is as much a detriment to society as is the wicked. He was the one who could read. He was the one who knew that they where changing their constitution, he was the one who knew what had happened to Snowball. HE WAS THE ONE WHO KNEW WHAT IT MEANT WHEN BAXTER WAS GOING TO THE "VET". He did NOTHING. A Greedy pig with cruelty and malice in his heart offends me less then a GODLESS PIECE OF SHIT DONKEY who failed to resemble, even for a moment, a decent individual. Fuck that Donkey. Burn in Hell Benjamin. Burn in fucking Hell.
BTW I never really did get over my temper.
Dam only after reading this am I pissed of at Benjamin the good for nothing donkey. I guess u could say he was a real ass😉
Everything you say is on point. I wish I could use this in my High School English Class, but due to the expletives, I can not show it. I hope in the future, you can omit that one aspect of your material so that I can post your amazing work.
This summary... these notes... are beautiful.
this is so helpful, we're reading it right now in 9th grade.
we had to read it in grade 7...
Desmond Hui
we read the giver and this other shit book in 7th grade. what did u read in 9th grade?
Nafisa Saima Sherlock Holmes, Kite Runner, Inherit the Wind (some stupid play), Romeo and Juliet, and A Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime
Nafisa Saima what did you read in grade 11?
not in 11th grade, i'm in an IB school, i guess that's why it's different.
“Man serves the interest of no creature except himself” (21).
I know it sounds stupid, but am I the only person who sees a similarity between Animal Farm and 1984
No.
😌
They were both written by the same author
xD
My friend had this book used as an assignment last year and he said it was hard like hell
I wish this was still uploaded to UA-cam. I love this notes.
"see yo ass next week" lmao
i remember reading this in the 8th grade and this made me want to read it again
im getting my teacher to show this to my class tomorrow:)
Shit. Over it. Did she haha?
This is unironically a very funny retelling of the story.
What a witty, cool and truly informative and concise video. I really wished my teacher showed this to us at school. Day before my Literature exam, but better late than never! Thanks!
many interpret this book as communism=bad capitalism=good but in reality the situations and flaws can also be applied to capitalist societies as well. while reading i was able to draw parallels with the american government.
Clockwork Orange please!
I would hate to be bitten by you, but you are awesome at analyzing books.
my day is been saved by this fine man.
SMARTEST "THUG" EVER!! helped my essay a lot! THANKS Wisecrack
"I will work harder!"
"Napoleon is always right!"
Two things the Soviet Union never really had a heavy emphasis upon, not in the way they think. Yes, state media exists, just as in every country on earth, but overall it was much more because of desire for self-preservation rather than legitimate greed.
Please do Dr Jekyll and Hyde
I just finished reading this book.
I read this book my sophomore year so I never thought about it being a representation of the Soviet Union. With the analyzes it does make sense that the "Animal Farm" can relate to the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. "Power can corrupt your mind."
I'm so torn. On one hand this would be great to introduce my 10th grade class to animal farm. On the other, if my department head hears the language you use, and that I allowed it, the animals in animal farm, won't be the only things getting f&%$#@d.
Rip the video and bleep the cursing if you must, its probably worth it
Come on! Do that please, I am sure people would show some sympathy for this guy. If not, they are not players. Students love teachers like you who thinks outside the box sometimes :)
Trust me they already know those words,if ou will show them this video then you will become their favourite teacher,the problem with most teachers(espcially teachers who teach literature) is that th ey present it in a very blunt and boring way,that's the reason almost everyone that I know dislike this class,but if you will present it to them like that and see them as equal(by using the same language you would usually use with your friends but not students) then they will respect you.
Have their parents sign a permission ship. This is too good.
I wish they had this 25 years ago when I read the book LOL but I got an A! :P
People in the comments acting as if Orwell wasn’t the original Trotsky fanboy
I went and read the book because of this video. Finished it today. Thank you thug note for showing me such a collection of good books.
I don't any other books summaries than these. Thank you!
Little known fact: Karl Marx predicted exactly this, 26 years before Lenin was even born. This is what he said would happen if people tried to skip economic development by jumping straight to communal ownership while still under capitalism:
”The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism-since it negates the personality of man in every sphere-is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited, standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it.
The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital-by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality-labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.”
-- Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
In other words, you cannot end the capitalist mode of production by banning private property. Ideology is not what determines the dominant mode of production. Technology is.
Trying to ban private property only changes the owners from private capitalists to the state, which exploits labor on the national level. In other words, state capitalism.
Anyone else doing this for their GCSE's?
(English highschool exams)
Bernie Sanders need to read this book
Sanders is a social democrat. He is not a communist or a socialist. He is a Liberal Reformist. The criticisms in this book do not apply to Sanders. Orwell would criticise Sanders though, but differently.
Speaking of which. You do know that Orwell, the author of this book, was a socialist right? The man was practically an Anarchist. He supported the idea of Communism. He just hated the authoritarian socialism of the Soviet Union, and considered it a perversion of socialism, similar to Trotskyism. Which Orwell expressed sympathy for.
The man fought for communism in Spain for fucks sake. He wanted to join the Anarchist trade union CNT as well.
+omega1397 He said it himself that he is a socialist I think you need to update yourself
+omega1397 Also how can you be a anarchist and be a socialist at the same time both are on different sides of a specrum
+Phase_TV he does say he's a socialist. But that doesn't mean he is. He never advocates for workers control of the means of production, just a liberal welfare state. This is very common among liberals, they misunderstand what socialism is, thinking it's just statist shit.
Anarchism and Socialism is not on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they are both about equality and workers control (well that's debatable, depends on the anarchist you're talking to, but the most prevalent Anarchist ideology is Anarcho-communism, so for the sake of simplifying things, it is)
The spectrum of left being more government and right being less is inaccurate and frustrating. The politics compass is more accurate, though the quiz is dumb.
There are many different kinds of Socialist ideologies. Some are soviet style, some are democratic and some are libertarian, like Anarchism. They all desire the end goal of communism, which is a stateless classless society, which is what (mostAnarchists want.
+Phase_TV seriously, the politically correct term for Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism. Two of the big granddaddies of Anarchism (Bakunin and Kroptokin) lived at the same time as Karl Marx and mostly agreed with him, though critical of his statist politics. To quote Bakunin, "liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". He also said (as I recall) "put the most ardent Marxist in the position of absolute power and in less then a week, he'll be worse the Tsar himself. Funny he chose Tsar as an example. Prophetic....
But yeah, tl;dr anarchism has been socialist since it's been an ideology. Well maybe Proudhon would kinda disagree but he was still kinda socialist.
Fun fact, the person who coined the term Libertarian was an Anarcho-communist. It's only recently, and mostly in English speaking countries, that it's meant free market capitalism. IIRC libertarian is still associated with Anarchism in France.
Unless someone really cares, nothing will ever change. It won't... - Dr. Seuss
This helped me so much with my English project, thank you!