In this blog post, drawing on my experience translating George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, I’ll examine the message of the work and the lessons it offers for modern society.

The End of the Cold War and the Power of an Open Society

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed shortly thereafter, people believed they had achieved a complete victory over communism. Some even proclaimed that “history had ended.” However, amid these celebrations, some astonishing facts came to light. After Germany was reunified and documents from the Stasi, the East German secret police, were made public, it became clear that the number of East German spies who had infiltrated West Germany’s leadership was beyond imagination. The list of spies—numbering as many as 30,000—included prominent West German intellectuals. It is ironic that, despite infiltrating such a vast number of people as spies over such a long period and carrying out relentless operations, it was ultimately the communist bloc that collapsed. I believe this demonstrates the power of an open society. Authoritarian regimes are inevitably closed off in order to maintain their systems, and I believe it is precisely this closed nature that ultimately leads to their defeat in the face of an open society. If so, will the animals in ‘Animal Farm’ someday be able to find freedom in an open society?
For one thing, the citizens of the former Soviet Union are now living as Russian citizens. While it’s still difficult to say they enjoy complete freedom, they are relatively free compared to the Stalin era. Other countries that were once part of the Soviet Union are generally in a similar situation. Since they have escaped the harsh rule where a single wrong word could cost them their lives, I’d like to believe there is hope for a better future.
However, in North Korea, right on our doorstep, a reality even more terrifying than Napoleon’s Reign of Terror persists. Many people look at North Korean citizens and ask, “Why aren’t they angry?” “Why don’t they rise up for democracy?” “Look at the protests in Hong Kong and Myanmar.” But if I were a North Korean citizen, I honestly don’t think I’d have the courage to rise up in defiance. If even the slightest hint of subversion is detected—even without taking any actual action—not only my life but also the lives and futures of my family and loved ones would be shattered. Who could easily raise their voice under such circumstances? Just as in the final scene of ‘Animal Farm’, where the animals quietly retreat even after seeing the pigs mingling with humans and behaving exactly like them, despair and helplessness are likely to dominate society. It is nothing but heartbreaking to wonder when North Korean residents will ever be able to enjoy even a modicum of freedom.

The Reality of the Free World and the Role of the Media

So, are societies that have always belonged to the free world still safe? First of all, just because a society is part of the free world doesn’t mean every country within it is at the same level. There are advanced democracies that have been following the path of liberal democracy for hundreds of years, and there are countries like ours that have embraced liberal democracy relatively recently. But one thing is certain: South Korea’s past military dictatorship was not as terrifying as ‘Animal Farm’ under Napoleon, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or present-day North Korea. I say this as someone who lived through the military dictatorship firsthand: at least here, brutal acts—such as gathering people to witness public executions or secret police raiding homes in the middle of the night—did not occur frequently. In the 1980s, a friend from the activist movement who was wanted by the authorities stayed at our house for a while, but my family never worried about a police raid in the middle of the night or the possibility of being arrested along with him. This is why, if North Korea ever liberalizes, we must seriously consider the collective trauma of its residents.
Returning to the question of whether “societies in the free world are safe,” they’ve been holding up reasonably well so far. This is because freedoms of the press and expression, checks and balances, fair electoral systems, and the rule of law are relatively well maintained.
Of course, many problems—such as the wealth gap, discrimination, and crime—remain unresolved, and with everyone raising a ruckus about all sorts of issues, it’s a chaotic scene. Moreover, people who harbor illusions about oppressive ideologies, such as communism or Nazism, simply refuse to disappear. There are also quite a few people in power who, while pretending to hold the people in high regard, secretly want to proclaim that they are “more equal” than others. To win votes or manage their public image, they put on a show of righteousness, only to eventually spout absurd sophistry to satisfy their sense of superiority.
However, this very commotion seems to be the very essence of a free society. The fact that anyone can speak out is the core of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Freedom of the press is one of the key criteria that distinguishes a closed society from an open one. A society is healthy only when there is the freedom to tell those in power—who spout sophistry claiming they are “more equal” than others—“No, you and I are equal before the law.” Just as a single child shouts, “The emperor has no clothes!” while everyone else fawns over the emperor’s attire, freedom of the press is what makes that refreshingly cathartic moment possible. If the price we must pay for this sense of relief is a bit of noise, I can certainly put up with it.
If we compare society to the human body, freedom of the press is like the immune system. Whenever problems arise in society, people speak freely—and while some of what they say may seem absurd—this process allows us to expose the issues and seek solutions. Even the healthiest person will fall ill at least once in their lifetime; maintaining good health requires an immune system capable of identifying problems and responding to them. Conversely, if internal criticism and vigilance disappear, that society will become more vulnerable.

The Tactics of Dictatorship and the West’s Dilemma

Dictators are well aware of this, which is why their first move is to silence the press. After all, if the people join forces, they can overthrow the dictator. In any country where a coup occurs, the coup forces first seize control of broadcast stations and immediately impose censorship on all media outlets.
Come to think of it, Napoleon in ‘Animal Farm’ also silenced the animals first. The first ominous sign emerged the day after the uprising, when it became known that only the pigs had taught themselves to read and write. In an era without visual media like television, those who were illiterate had no way to widely share their thoughts.
If the pigs had been so inclined, they could have taught the other animals to read while organizing themselves in preparation for the uprising. Things might have been different if they had at least encouraged the others to learn together; the fact that they did not suggests they were already consumed by a sense of superiority and were nurturing the seeds of dictatorship. From that moment on, the future in which they would claim to be “more equal” already existed.
Another tactic Napoleon employed was to berate the animals with the question, “Do you want to go back to the days of Jones?” whenever they showed the slightest sign of dissatisfaction or raised an issue. To this end, he first cast Jones as the root of all evil and insisted to the animals that “no matter how hard things are now, they’re better than they were under Jones.” Creating a scapegoat to quell dissent is a classic and effective strategy.
Once this method takes hold, even a simple personal complaint like “Life is hard these days” is branded as siding with the devil, silencing everyone.
Napoleon completely muzzled the farm animals by executing those who later confessed their mistakes in front of everyone. As I mentioned earlier when discussing North Korea, if a single slip of the tongue could lead to the extermination of an entire family, who would dare to speak their mind carelessly? A reign of terror is the ultimate method of silencing everyone.
When Stalin was committing such acts in the Soviet Union, the Western world was likely well aware of the situation. Yet, surprisingly, some Western intellectuals voluntarily stepped forward to suppress voices critical of the Soviet Union. This is a fact that George Orwell himself pointed out while revealing the twists and turns of that era. It was an absurd situation in which people who had loudly championed freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and democratic principles took the lead in censorship. The reason they put forward was that the Soviet Union was an ally in World War II, so criticism should be restrained; however, I believe that, in addition to this, a vague sympathy for socialism and communism and a vague longing for revolution also clearly played a role. I view both of these as truly vague emotions.
A remark made by Stalin’s daughter after she defected to the West is famous: “If you learn communism from books, you become a communist; if you learn communism through experience, you become an anti-communist.” This statement remains valid today, and the same holds true even if the word “communism” is replaced with various other extremist terms.
Paradoxically, however, this attitude among Western intellectuals was also proof that they lived in a free and open society. Would anyone who praised the Western world have survived in the heart of the Soviet Union? What would have happened if an intellectual in Pyongyang had said that the South Korean system was good? When George Orwell was about to publish ‘Animal Farm’, British intellectuals did not have to worry about being punished for whatever they said. Orwell himself was not punished by the state for publishing the book. This point is crucial: the fact that the state did not intervene directly. Although Orwell complained that freedom of the press was insufficient, the Western world’s freedom and openness were not destroyed—even amid a swarm of romantic communists—precisely because an “immune system” of freedom of the press, albeit in a weakened form, existed.

The Limits of Freedom of the Press and Individual Responsibility

But is that enough? Is freedom of the press safeguarded as long as the state does not intervene? No, it is not. The fact that George Orwell struggled to publish ‘Animal Farm’ demonstrates this. Just as I am entitled to speak out, I must also guarantee others the right to do so; yet, at the time, some British intellectuals sought to suppress voices critical of the Soviet Union. Where had the rationality and critical thinking they prided themselves on gone?
Karl Popper pointed out that for an open society to be maintained, people must think rationally and be able to take responsibility for themselves. Just hearing this requirement can feel exhausting—it seems like we’d have to live under immense stress and shoulder a heavy burden of responsibility. Perhaps that is why so many people easily fall into blindness and fanaticism. If someone else does the thinking for me and even takes on the responsibility, wouldn’t I just be able to follow along without a care in the world?
But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. When someone steps forward saying, “I’ll take care of everything,” if you come to your senses, you’ll find that nine times out of ten, that person is treating you like a slave. Look at Boxer in ‘Animal Farm’. Even when suspicious things happened, he blindly believed that Napoleon was always right—until he was eventually sold to the butcher and ended up paying for the pigs’ whiskey. Boxer had no opportunity for education and lived in an era before mass media, so there is some room for excuse. However, Western intellectuals in George Orwell’s time were different, and people today are no different.
Always remaining vigilant and striving not to fall into blindness and fanaticism, pursuing rational and critical thinking, and not shirking responsibility even when it’s difficult—this is the price we must pay to live with human dignity in a free society. If we do not pay this price, we will end up living as merely “equal” animals under someone who is “more equal.”