John Molyneux认为，奥威尔提出“同情的调查，穷人的生活和最穷的人”在俄罗斯。表面上看，似乎奥威尔是同情但只是因为他对社会主义的破坏，在一个极权社会或者说他真正的同情与压迫俄罗斯人的崛起吗？奥威尔确实让我们同情农场里的动物，展示它们荒凉的环境。他决定，作为读者的我们都知道，他们都是“不”，内容涉及俄罗斯的饥荒，这又增加了同情，是现实的情况是真正的读者。然而，出于政治动机的背景“动物农场”叶John Molyneux的解释问题。使用象征性的描述，平行于俄罗斯的权威人物，暗示奥威尔更关心的是对俄罗斯统治者的愤世嫉俗的看法，而不是对可怜的俄罗斯人生活的片面同情调查。然而无产者的压迫是不值得怀疑的。奥威尔及其批评者所发现的苦难证明了他企图在极权社会中心表现压迫的意图。
John Molyneux suggests that Orwell offers “a sympathetic investigation into the lives of the poor and the poorest” within Russia. On the face of it, it appears that Orwell was sympathetic but was it merely because he feared for the destruction of Socialism and the rise in a Totalitarian society or that he genuinely ‘sympathised’ with the oppressed Russians? Orwell does allow us to be sympathetic towards the animals on the farm through showing their desolate conditions. He determines that as readers we are aware that they are “unfed”, contextually referring to the famine in Russia, again this adds to the sympathy that is created as the reality of the situation becomes real for a reader. However, the politically motivated background of ‘Animal Farm’ leaves John Molyneux’s interpretation to question. The use of character representations, paralleling the figures of authority in Russia, infers that Orwell was more concerned about creating a cynical view of the rulers in Russia rather than a one sided “sympathetic investigation” into the poor Russians lives. Nevertheless the oppression of the proletarians is never questionable. The hardship identified by Orwell and his critics verifies his intention in demonstrating oppression at the centre of a Totalitarian society.