A common criticism of my recent essay Bitcoin Core and ‘Animal Farm’ is that my analogy falls apart because Core is not communist nor are they using political force to achieve their ends. 
On my part, I think it is a grade school level reading of Orwell to interpret his novel strictly as a criticism of Russian Bolshevism.
Orwell’s book, in his own words, is not only an analogy to the Russian Revolution, but is a broader analogy to the process by which communities become corrupted against their original intent. This is not after-the-fact justification on my part, it comes from Orwell himself writing in the unpublished preface to Animal Farm:
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.
It is important to understand, as Orwell did, that a community can adopt a totalitarian ethos without acting with political force. The sinister fact about censorship in Bitcoin is that it is largely voluntary.
The theft of Gavin Andresen’s commit access on the made-up charges that he might have been hacked, the lies and slander about Roger Ver, and the DDos attacks on Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin XT are not the same as sending people to Gulags, but they are also not the actions of a community committed to open discussion, but of one committed to untruth and silencing opposition. The censorship of Reddit, the worship of credentials, redefining words to stretch the truth, and the hacking of private account are likewise not actions of a community that claims to be about “consensus.”
Orwell goes on to describe this phenomena more:
At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
The orthodoxy in our case is obvious: small blocks, Segwit, and Lightning Network had “consensus,” right? Everyone agrees that Bitcoin Cash is a scam, right? The problem with this is that we can never know if it actually did have consensus or not because any opposing voice was silenced on Reddit, discredited by slander, and ultimately pushed out of the discussions. Anyone else who remained was scared to speak out, a fact which Mike Hearn made clear in his recent AMA when he wrote that the “act of voting itself was what scared them [miners], not the outcome.”
This is the kind of culture that ultimately develops in Animal Farm. It would be wrong to assume that the primary means by which the pigs kept power on the farm was through violence. That certainly existed — they slaughtered many animals — but the pigs would have had no power if all the animals had decided together to act against them. No, they were much smarter than to rely on force alone. The pigs, like Bitcoin Core, understood that if they controlled communication channels and could undermine the character of opposition, they would rarely need to be violent.
Boxer the horse works himself to death not because he was forced at the barrel of a gun (or snout of a pig) to do so, but because he was a useful idiot who had been trained to believe everything the pigs said was true because they were the pigs. Today, Boxer is the animal equivalent of Twitter users with a Lightning emoji in their name. They accept everything from Core unchallengely and label Bitcoin Cash a scam for no demonstrable reason at all, only because they’ve been told to.
Let’s look at one more passage from Orwell to end this essay:
At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you arc not allowed to criticise the Soviet government, at least you are reasonably free to criticise our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals.
The lesson from Orwell is that private forms of censorship can be equally nefarious and equally corrupting as public forms. He is a sad reminder to us looking back in time at what happened to the BTC community and should be a guide to us for the future as we work to spread the adoption of Bitcoin Cash.
If we lose, it is a bad sign for the entire idea of decentralized digital cash.
Like this essay and want to see more? Please consider supporting my writing and sharing this essay on Twitter with #ProofOfPig.
 After publishing this, I logged onto Twitter to find that the @Bitcoin account has been suspended and that Core users are gleefully celebrating having a used a centralized service to get a private user banned for an opinion with which they disagreed.