If Snowball seized power...

[rc2101]

After reading 1984, I find myself wondering what would have happened if Snowball, or Leon Trotsky in the Russian Revolution, seized power of Animal Farm.

If Snowball - I'll use Snowball instead of Trotsky so I don't keep going back and forth - did somehow seize power and Napoleon gradually retreated into oblivion, then "permanent revolution," which is Snowball's belief that the success of the revolution depends on the its continuous expansion, would have prevailed. Would the "permanent revolution" policy work? Or in other words, would Snowball be able to incite revolutions on the farms owned by Mr. Pilkington, who represents Churchill, and Mr. Frederick, who represents Adolf Hitler?

For the animals under Snowball's control, would they lead better lives? Or would power go to Snowball's head, like it did Napoleon's head, leading Snowball to prosper at the expense of the other animals?

[The Atheist]

Haha! We've had this discussion before - during a WWII discussion, I think.

I'm firmly of the opinion that Trotsky was more humanitarian than Stalin, but then I'm probably biased as Orwell was. It certainly seems in the book that Snowball would have stayed truer to the meaning of Animalism, and I think the same applies with Trotsky.

Then again, we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so maybe it would have been no difference at all.

Excellent question, though!

I'm sure Baz will come and give us his side.

[bazarov]

We could never know what would happen with Gulag and such things if Trotsky became a leader; although Lenin wanted Trotsky to be a leader. Honores mutant mores; who knows what would happen?

Trotsky wanted proletarian revolution, but he was aware that peasants could never be able to tackle such a hard case like leading whole state and it's industry. If peasants become owners of small estates, then they are small capitalists and landlords, and Trotsky believed that only perfect capitalism can be turned in socialism, which wasn't situation in Russia.
He was also for democracy, not for someone's dictatorship; people would choose it's leaders.
Also, socialism would start in Russia and then it would be spread on east and in to the whole capitalistic Europe. Would they get to England and Germany? If it would turn good in Russia, then maybe it would be accepted in England and Germany; why not? If people see that it functions abroad, why wouldn't they give a try? Also, there were socialists movements all over the world, no matter what of catastrophic consequences it had in USSR.