Animal Farm is not only about the power of the pigs and their corruption. It is about the blame laid at the other animals for their inability to identify the corruption and their manipulation. Is this statement true?
I think that this statement is valid. There is a clear indictment of the pigs and their leadership that represented the essence of corruption. However, I think that Orwell does lay blame at the feet of the other animals who failed to recognizes this abuse of power and their own manipulation. Orwell is suggesting that the active members of a citizenry who are committed to being voices of dissent in ensuring that government is responsive to the needs of the people is the only way in which government can function properly. Whether it is Boxer's blind trust and faith in government and Napoleon, or Benjamin's cynicism, or the sheep's mindless following, Orwell constructs different settings in which the lack of a cohesive and solidarity based reform movement on the part of the animals helps to consolidate the pig and dog formation of power. While animals did rebel in isolated incidents, like the pullets, Orwell suggests that dissent must be shared by all members of the body politic in order for change to have a lasting and thorough effect in keeping government mindful of its responsibilities. This is not to say that Orwell reserves more anger for the animals. I think that his most stinging indictments is reserved for the perpetrators of political abuse. Yet, Orwell does not hesitate in suggesting that there are instances where people get the government they deserve and this is valid in the passivity of the animals in demanding change on a large and cohesive scale.