We The Benefactor Analysis

While examining the seven works of literature, various critiques were repeated throughout multiple works. Some particularly interesting examples of these critiques include claims that life is monotonous and that communism continued the process of reification while possessing an emphasis on perfection. Obviously, this supports the argument that intellectuals possessed similar critiques regardless of their nationalities and time periods and made their shared critiques apparent in their literature. While various critiques were reoccurring between the sources, there were two major critiques which were evident in all the studied nationalities and time periods. These two universal critiques were the intellectuals’ claims that the communist state

held the power to determine what is true or moral and that there is a lack of free thought and expression under communism.
The State in Control of Truth and Morals
In The Fall, Saxonberg makes the claim that “for intellectuals, decisions to organize were normally in connection to political repression.” While political repression was an important factor in intellectuals’ dissent, the communist states’ repression of truth and morals was also a contributing factor. In fact, the claim that the communist states ultimately determined what was true and moral is the first universal critique of communism present in all of the literary works.
Regarding the states’ power over what was to be considered true, Zamyatin’s We and Orwell’s Animal Farm contain prime examples of this criticism. Zamyatin’s We will represent Russian intellectuals and the Pre-WWII period while Orwell’s Animal Farm will represent British intellectuals and the Post-WWII period.
One of the most explicit examples of the communist states’ control over the truth is present following We’s election scene.

In We, the Benefactor, the leader of the One State and the one in power over the ciphers’ happiness, is chosen through an election. All the same, the election is merely symbolic. According to the narrator, D-503, the elections are predictable as the Benefactor is reelected each time with a unanimous vote from all the ciphers. However, in this election D-503 witnesses thousands of ciphers voting against the Benefactor, thus going against the previous trend. This provokes a panic and confrontation between the dissenters and the guardians; however, the state, which is inferred to be communist, refuses to acknowledge the fact that there was any dissent. This is most evident from the article in the State Gazette the next morning. In it the state claims that “FOR THE 48TH TIME THE BENEFACTOR, WHO HAS PROVEN HIS UNSHAKABLE WISDOM MANY TIMES OVER, WAS UNANIMOUSLY CHOSEN.” This clearly demonstrates the power that the state holds over how events are presented. As a result, the state has control over what is considered true. In this case, the Benefactor is claimed to be unanimously elected despite the thousands publically witnessed dissenting. By including this event in We, Zamyatin makes a statement about the corruption of truth due to the communist state and how it decides to depict

events.
Another memorable instance in which the communist state’s ability to determine what is true is critiqued is in Orwell’s Animal Farm. The particular event that exposes this critique is the death of Boxer, who was taken away from the farm by a van that had the words horse slaughterer and glue boiler on it after Napoleon, the leader, said Boxer would be taken to a veterinarian. Multiple animals witnessed Boxer being taken away and tried to help him escape; however, they were unsuccessful. After Boxer is pronounced dead, Squealer, a public supporter of the communist state, acknowledges rumors that Boxer was slaughtered and claims that he actually died in a hospital as Napoleon promised. The reason for the mistake, Squealer claims, that the van had recently been purchased by a veterinarian and the stupidity of the animals. In doing so, Squealer suggests that the state knows more than the animals, therefore allowing the state the authority to dispel rumors and communicate what the state knows to be true. Napoleon reinforces this idea during his eulogy for Boxer, in which he reminds the animals of Boxers’ maxim: “Comrade Napoleon is always right.” While the animals are relieved by Squealer and Napoleons’ statements, there is still doubt due to what the van said. This uncertainty emphasizes the critique that the state has power over what is considered true. As Napoleon claimed that Boxer would be taken to a veterinarian and he is always right, his narrative dominates that of the witnesses, despite the sense of doubt that the animals and Orwell’s narrative suggest. In summary, Orwell critiques the power that the state has in determining what is true as it can go against what others witness, much like the state’s false election account in We.
Not only do intellectuals use literature to critique how the state corrupts truth, but they extend this critique to include how the state dictates morality. This extension is explicit in Havel’s “Power of the Powerless” and Pope John Paul II’s Memory and Identity. Havel’s “Power of the Powerless” acts as a representative for Czechoslovakian intellectuals, as well as the Post-Prague Spring period. Pope John Paul II’s Memory and Identity represent Polish intellectuals and the period after communism’s fall.
In Havel’s “Power of the Powerless,” he explicitly addresses the critique without embellishing it or conveying it in a narrative.

He simply states that “the center of power is identical with the center of truth… the highest secular authority is identical with the highest spiritual authority.” Given that the center of power was the communist state, Havel readdresses the universal critique that the state held power over the truth. However, he extends this by suggesting that, as the highest secular authority, the communist state also possessed the highest spiritual, or moral, authority. This was made possible due to communism’s aversion to religion and emphasis on salvation on Earth rather than in a religious afterlife. With religion no longer prominent as a determining factor of morality, the communist state was able to directly control what was considered moral. Havel expands his critique of communism as a “secular religion” by claiming that people turned to it for answers and a sense of belonging, but “the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility.” By detailing what those under the communist state lost, Havel displays that the state takes not only thought and accountability from the people, but it also takes their conscience. As a result, individuals cannot determine morality on an individual basis according to their own conscience. The communist state takes control of morality and maintains it as the highest secular authority.

Therefore, the critique that Havel presents is that the communist state takes control over morality by forcing the individual to give away their ability to determine morality and diminishing religion’s influence.
Pope John Paul II’s Memory and Identity repeats Havel’s critique regarding the state’s dominance over morality. He displays this when he claims that, without God, groups of people can become responsible for deciding who can be physically and morally eliminated. Like Havel, the Pope suggests that the absence of religion allows a group, or the state in context, to determine what is moral regarding not only the people’s morals, but their lives as well. Ultimately, he suggests that the religious vacuum allowed for the communist state to control what was considered good or bad, even to the extent of justifying the execution and restriction of certain groups. Therefore, the critique that the communist state dictated morality shows its origins in communism’s aversion to religion. As the importance of religion was diminished by the state, the state took over religion’s role as a moral authority. Havel and Pope John Paul II both argue that this allowed the communist state to impose its morals on the citizens and justify its own actions.
Overall, the first general critique claims that the communist states held the power to dictate truth and morals. The sources included show signs that this critique is present in all four of the studied nationalities and time periods. In regards to truth, Zamyatin and Orwell display claims that the communist state dominates the narrative, thus allowing it to corrupt how events are explained and dismiss the claims of witnesses. The state‘s corrupted narrative then becomes the publically accepted version in both cases, despite the fact that the characters witnessed the events differently. In regards to morality, Havel and Pope John Paul II suggest that the communist states fill their self-imposed religious vacuum in order to dominate the perception of morality. This then allows the state to dictate what is right and wrong, which translates into the state determining how individuals understand morality and the justification of the state’s actions. In the end, this critique revolves around the communist state determining what is true or moral for its own best interest, rather than allowing the individuals or religion to keep their perceptions.