Would it have been better if Mr. Jones was still in charge of the farm?I am not sure whether Mr. Jones was better than the pigs. Mr. Jones didn't take very good care of the animals but was he a...

Would it have been better if Mr. Jones was still in charge of the farm?

I am not sure whether Mr. Jones was better than the pigs. Mr. Jones didn't take very good care of the animals but was he a better than Napoleon?

Expert Answers
pohnpei397 eNotes educator| Certified Educator

Probably not.  At least with the pigs in charge no one is getting slaughtered for food.  Sure, Boxer does get sold and euthanized, but at least he's pretty much dead already.  As far as we know, they aren't selling pigs and sheep and chickens for food.  

There are definitely bad things going on with Napoleon given that he's willing to kill animals for political reasons.  But somehow that seems better than having lots of animals get killed for food since in the second case there's nothing they can possibly do to avoid being killed.  At least under Napoleon they can just obey him and live.

e-martin eNotes educator| Certified Educator

Part of the point of the novel is the suggestion that the pigs are no more fair in running the farm and in the end inflict the same kind cruelty on the other animals that the humans once inflicted. 

Mr. Jones may have been a better master than Napoleon, but if he was it was only due to his indifference. Napoleon was actually cruel where Mr. Jones  was merely unfeeling and unsympathetic to the animals. 

Under Mr. Jones there were also no illusions. The animals knew who was their friend and who was their enemy. 

stolperia eNotes educator| Certified Educator

The pride of living and working for another animal was a strong unifying force for all those living at Animal Farm, however hard the life was. Because of the loyalty the animals felt toward the cause of controlling their own destiny, I don't think any of the animals would have felt sorry that Mr. Jones wasn't in charge any more. Some came to have concerns about the ways in which the pigs were running the farm, but they never gave up the hope of having an Animal Farm of the animals, by the animals, and for the animals.

litteacher8 eNotes educator| Certified Educator
Although Mr. Jones did not betray the animals in the same way that Napoleon and the pigs did, he was a horrible farmer. He got drunk and forgot to feed them. He neglected the farm terribly and it was very I efficiently run. Worst of all, he did not seem to care about his animals. That was something he and Napoleon had in common. Napoleon did not care about individual animals either. He used them. He made sure they were fed and cared for, but gave them the bare minimum. They were suffering either way.
bullgatortail eNotes educator| Certified Educator

In the end, the animals received less food and more work than existed when Mr. Jones was still the owner of Manor Farm. Many of the animals were convinced that their freedom from human slavery was worth the extra sacrifices, but they simply ended up being ruled by the deceitful pigs, who took on human characteristics in the end. The pigs would have been better fed with Mr. Jones, but they would never have been able to feel the fleeting feelings of freedom they experienced under Napoleon.

shake99 eNotes educator| Certified Educator
In a sense, yes it might have been better if Mr. Jones had still run the farm. The animals were not well off in either case, but things were trending downward at the end of Animal Farm, and appeared to just be getting worse and worse. On the other hand, maybe at some point the animals would have revolted against Napoleon. Keep in mind that Stalin eventually fell out of favor in Russia. Of course, he had to die first.
literaturenerd eNotes educator| Certified Educator

I would have to say no. Regardless of either's animal or human nature (or being), both had their faults. What came of the farm would have (most likely) been inevitable. The weak are ruled and the strong are challenged. This is simply the way of life.