it themselves. After a couple of years pass in the story, the farm and its occupants are more well-known and are highly regarded for being prosperous. “Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves richer-except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. . . But still, neither the pigs nor dogs produced any food by their own labors.” (129-130) Because one side (aristocrats or pigs and dogs) will get more, the other side (proletariat or the other animals) get much less, the chain of influence is dominant here. By having the pigs be more powerful, they themselves feel life is improving on the farm, but for the other animals, life is the same or possibly worse.
it themselves. After a couple of years pass in the story, the farm and its occupants are more well-known and are highly regarded for being prosperous. “Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves richer-except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. . . But still, neither the pigs nor dogs produced any food by their own labors.” (129-130) Because one side (aristocrats or pigs and dogs) will get more, the other side (proletariat or the other animals) get much less, the chain of influence is dominant here. By having the pigs be more powerful, they themselves feel life is improving on the farm, but for the other animals, life is the same or possibly worse.