It's a Marxist allegory.

Magic is capital controlled by the wizarding world. The "pure-blood" Slytherins

represent the aristocracy who believe that "magic" (i.e. capital) should be in the
hands of a privileged elite. The "clever" Ravenclaws represent the bourgeois
intelligentsia. Hufflepuff are the petty-bourgeois, stupid and useless yet still
oppressive.
All wizards treat Muggles (proletarians) as inferior beings and allow them to labour
and suffer when, if they control of the means of production (magic), they could have
much better lives. The Muggles are unaware of magic's existence, just like the
proletariat are largely unaware of the existence of capitalism. The house-elves are
skilled labourers lacking class-consciousness, believing that the system is kind to
them. Dobby is like that guy in The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, but he
ultimately fails in igniting revolution.
Note that while some believe that it is acceptable for Muggle-borns to learn magic
(i.e. become nouveau riche) and others disagree, all agree that magical people are
inherently superior. The wizarding peoples do not learn to perform productive labour
at Hogwarts, merely how to use the magic they were born with. Similarly, the
bourgeoisie need only learn to manipulate money; the workers will produce it.
And so we come to our heroes. The Gryffindors wear red Quidditch robes and
represent the Red Army. Dumbledore, with his voluminous white beard, stands for
Karl Marx; Hagrid is Engels, his faithful servant; while Harry Potter's glasses and
untidy black hair make him identical to Leon Trotsky. Harry's lightning-bolt scar is in
reference to the fatal head wound inflicted on Trotsky by Ram ón Mercader with an
ice pick. The two Orders of the Phoenix represent the First and Second
Internationals.
Voldemort represents the modern consumer. His commodity fetishism is symbolised
by the Horcruxes, "valuable" objects into which he projects parts of his soul.
Possessions give him identity; destroying them shatters it, making him realise that he
has not developed as a human being. Mrs Umbridge represents Margaret Thatcher,
as evil champions of the capitalist system.
Quidditch is a further allegory. The Chasers and Keeper represent the workers, who
supply most of the game's work and are forced to compete with each other. The
Beaters are the armies who, although they appear to fight each other, in reality
oppress the workers. The Seeker is the capitalist: he wins the gold(en snitch) and
renders the Chasers' labour virtually worthless.
Snape is Lenin. He kills Dumbledore in order to fulfill Dumbledore's plans, just as
Lenin modified Marxist theory to fulfil Marx's broad goals.
 Hey, that makes sense!
 Also, Harry often acts like respect and success should just fall into his lap -
Trotsky, being far more intelligent that those around him, had the same flaw.

o Good theory, but for 2 problems: The Workers labour in order to make the
products and earn a living, but if magic is in-born, than how can the proles
produce it? The theory sounds like a reversal of the Death Eater
"Muggleborns stole our magic!" propaganda. Also, Harry may act like he's
entitled to a lot of information - which, in a way, he is - but he rarely acts like
respect should just be his. He's felt that he's earned it after facing who
 knows how many near-death encounters and winning/surviving, and is angry
that he is always treated as a kid by Dumbledore, Molly, etc.
 Creative but ultimately almost certainly wrong, and even IF correct it only
shows that JK Rowling shot herself in the foot by screwing up the allegory
(nevermind the ideological problems in the first place). For one, the theory
holds that the Muggles can somehow PRODUCE magic, which we have
absolutely no evidence to support. And even if we CAN somehow accept that,
there is nothing we know of in canon for Muggles to somehow OBTAIN magic,
unlike the workers, who can obtain capital (albiet in Marxist theory largely
indirectly).

o Also have the big problem of that Harry was literally born into insane amount
of wealth, even if he didn't have it before he was eleven. Inheritable wealth is
basically the worst mortal sin in the eyes of Marxist, since it is money and
power you do NOT have to lift a finger for.

Order of the Phoenix is an allegory about the dangers of

matriarchism.
Umbridge is a woman holding a job that otherwise was exclusively male, and she
completely botched it. Just to rub it in, she's from the Ministry Of Magic (M.O.M.),
and the job is Defense Against the Dark Arts (D.A.D.A.).
 Being head of the school is not an exclusively male job. Minerva McGonnagall
is major proof.
 And the M.O.M. point doesn't hold water. Rowling is a British author, and her
books are set in Britain, while "mom" is American.
o Yes, and to elaborate on that point, in British editions it's the
Minister/Ministry for Magic...Minister/Ministry Of Magic is the American
edition's 'translation'.

Grindelwald collaborated with or ''took over'' the Nazis

Why conqure the muggles when someone has practically done it for you? It would've
been very easy for him, a tall (presumably), blond, blue-eyed, handsome, fiercely
intelligent person with occult powers, to win over a group of people who valued these
exact traits. Under his leadership, the Third Reich was able to expand; unfortunately
for the Nazis, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald before the end of the war. As for the
concentration camps, Grindlewald either didn't know, looked the other way, or had
jumped off the slippery slope. Or, given how Horcruxes have to be powered by cold-
blooded murder, he was using deaths at concentration camps to power up some sort
of magic artifact or construct.
 There's just a little error in your theory: He probably felt the same thing
Dumbledore felt for him, thus making him gay and against the very base of
the Nazi evil policy.
 o The greater good...
o SHUT IT!!!
o And that's not even to mention a Don't Ask Don't Tell idea; if he wanted to
ally with the Nazis for some reason, there's no reason he would have had to
say "Oh, and by the way, I like men".
 Rohm was killed in 1934, though. Five years later, at the start of WW2, the
Nazis were extremely anti-gay. Gay people were sent to the concentration
camps, you know.
o I am fairly sure J. K. Rowling described Dumbledore's feelings for
Grindelwald as "unrequited."
 To answer: Since he would've been a Man Behind the Man, only the elite of
the elite would've met him - possibly just Hitler and Himmler. The Big Book of
Conspiracies says that Hitler was occasionally caught ranting to an unseen
being - perhaps this being was inside a portrait? Besides, would you risk
spreading rumors about the commander of a magical army who might be able
to read minds and was probably no slouch himself in the torture/kill
department?
o Anyway, the Nazis were killing gay Muggles; why would he care?
 Because a huge part of Grindlewald's (initial) "For The Greater
Good" agenda was putting muggles under the protection of wizards, but like
I said before that may have devolved to "Rule The Muggles Who Rule The
Muggles" by the time Albus defeated him.
 And wasn't Hitler dark-haired and half-Jewish? Compared to him,
Grimdlewald sounds like a model of "Aryan fitness."

o Dark-haired, half-Jewish and gay!

 Crossover WMG: Inglourious Basterds was a true story — Hitler, Goebbels,
Borrman, Goerring and the rest of the Nazi high command were killed in the
theatre, but Grindenwald & Co. assumed command immediately afterwards
and kept the war going another year.

Alternatively, Grindelwald is Hitler.

I can't really be bothered to make this work this late at night, but it's not impossible
what with all the occult nazi stuff. As for the final duel - Hitler didn't commit suicide,
he was locked in Auschwitz (Nurmengard) and left there to rot for a little while. He
didn't last long and - I dunno. Someone sort this out.
 "Gendelwald = Kroenen" poster, I'll give it a try (this is facinating when
combined with the fact that a fragment of a skull the Russians claimed was
Hitler's turned out to be an unknown female's):
 o Always Hitler: Grindelwald takes on the less-impressive but more belivable
form of Adolf Hitler so he could infiltrate the Nazi movement, which he or a
psychic predicted would have a huge impact on the muggle race. He
eventually becomes their ultra-charismatic leader and somehow manages to
keep this disguise a secret from the pureblood purist wizards, who would
have denounced him for "collaborating" with the muggles.
 (ponders) So if Grindelwald was gay, would that mean Eva Braun was his
"beard"? And this doesn't account for all of Hitler's relatives... After giving it
some thought, Hitler's (or "Hitler's") relatives are Grindlewald's
squib/muggle relatives (HP Lexicon says he's "probably pureblood", but if
Voldemort and Snape are able to get into Slytherin...).
o Replaced Hitler: The real Hitler was assassinated in the "Valkarie" plot (or
earlier) and Grindelwald took over so he could continue to control the Nazis.
The later mental breakdowns was the "mask" beginning to crack when he
began to lose control of both magic and muggle fronts.

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is a wizard. In fact, he is

the United States wizarding government's top DADA
specialist.
Just like every North Carolinian senator who preceded him in his seat. His senatorial
seat is "cursed": it's switched parties in every election since 1975. Sound familiar?
 The 2010 elections unfortunately seem to have invalidated this theory; Burr
just won a second term.

o That just means the curser lifted it, or died.

 I think you mean Jesse Helms, OP.

Building upon that...

Jesse Helms was a powerful, pure-blood supremacist
Dark Wizard.
He cursed North Carolina's other Senate seat because he didn't want any Muggle
becoming equal to him.
Harry Potter is intended to advertise libertarian
viewpoints
Umbridge's time in Hogwarts showed clearly that governmental influence in private
education is bad. The ministry of magic itself is described as rather sinister place,
schemeing to reach obedience via surveillance. Reliable news only come from the
Quibbler, not the Daily Prophet, which appears to be a wizarding world equivalent of
the Pravda. My fiance believes this is indication enough that Rowling is libertarian.
  Benjamin Barton, a University of Tennessee law professor, agrees . If you
don't feel like reading the whole thing, Barton's basic point is that the Ministry
is a self-serving bureaucracy with no checks or balances and the main
characters seem to have little use for it.
 Unlikely, though, because J. K. Rowling has consistently supported the
Labour Party.

All major female characters are author avatars

The female characters are better than the male characters. Not surprising, perhaps.
The male characters aren't bad, but the females each really hit a sweet spot.
There have been various claims of this character or that character being JKR's "Mary
Sue," but no one character fills the bill. Instead, they all are. Each representing some
aspect of JKR. More differentiated than the male characters.
Ginny - shy girl whose determined love wins the hero at the end. By letting him go
she proves he really loves her.
Hermione - bookish. Smartest witch in the school, who's wooed by
international soccer star Beckham Quidditch star Krum. Know-it-all nerd who's
friends with Harry, the coolest kid in school, the Chosen One.
Fleur - ravishing beauty who's brave and intelligent. Marries coolest and richest
Weasley. No trouble with harassment or stalkers.
 That we've seen, given that we're following Harry's perspective. I've always
wondered if Fleur's reaction to Ron's asking her to the ball could be explained
by how tired she was of hormonal teenage boys she barely knew asking her
out clearly only because of her looks.

McGonagall - Revered goddess of wisdom. In OotP it's the attack on her that sets off
the professor in the Astronomy tower. Even after Sirius' and Dumbledore's deaths
Harry keeps trying not to fight. What finally sets him off at Hogwarts in Deathly
Hallows is ... someone spitting in McGonagall's face.
Molly Weasley - Keeper of the last homely house. Only person allowed to strike a
killing blow against evil. (If anyone is JKR in the book, it's Molly. Think about the
special clock as the physical embodiment of the worries of motherhood.)
Cho and Luna can also represent portions of JKR's personality, perhaps based on
her personal experiences. Cho is rejection in a relationship. Note also Hermione's
telepathic description of Cho's feelings, while Ron's reaction is straight out of the
"boys are stupid" book.
Luna (with Sybil Trelawny) - the spacy female aspect of the moon. Runner-up for the
real JKR. (Luna's chains of friendship in DH were the most touching scene in the
whole series.) (Note Sybil's importance as seeress.)
They're all more distinct and differentiated than the male characters.
The male characters are good, the female characters are just enough better to be
great. Drawn with slightly more life, but in the right places and ways.
Bellatrix is the conniving, uncaring, ambitious aspects of femininity.
Look at the other major female death: Self-sacrifice by Lily Potter that saves her son,
and ultimately the world.
(Professor Burbage doesn't count. A red-shirt sympathy frag I had to check to
determine the gender of.)
- Jove Hack
 What about Umbridge?

-Leliel
 The aspects Rowling doesn't like about herself, and knows no one else would.
No Villain Sues here, thank you.

The 1st Book is The Sorceror's Stone in the US,

and The Philosopher's Stone elsewhere,
Because the Patriots don't want American children to be thinking too much about
Philosophers.
 More like thinking at all - the Philosopher's stone isn't particularly well-
known in the States and the publishers wanted readers to know they were
about to pick up a book about wizards and magic. You'd be hard-pressed to
find a person who is not an instructor or student in philosophy that would
encourage its study in the U.S., but keeping the "philosopher" title would have
doomed the book to sit on shelves collecting dust.

The Mauraders are a stand-in for The Beatles

Think about it. There were four of them, and James kind of resembles John Lennon,
they were broken up, and two of them died by the end of the series.
 Confirmed. Well, sort of. The film version of POA had flashback scene (it was
ultimately cut from the final film) showing the young Marauders. According to
Harry Potter: From Page to Screen, "James was like Paul—good looking and
sure of himself—and Sirius was like John, as he was a bit of an anarchic
troublemaker. We gave them sideburns, little glasses and longer shirts."
 But the Marauders weren't broken up by Lily. Nonetheless, this is always how
I imagine Come Together.
 Well... she did have the baby involved in the prophecy that prompted
Voldemort to kill James. So, she kinda did, right? I like this theory. James is
John, Sirius is Paul, Lupin in George and Pettigrew is Ringo. And by the way,
all four of the Marauders are dead by the end of the series, not just two.

o Hey, hey, hey — don't insult Ringo!

o This troper would argue that Peter is very much like Ringo — except he was
a Ringo who allowed his perceived lesser importance stop him form being
anything other than a hanger-on to their coattails who turned against the rest
of his group on promises of a better "role" with a rival/enemy "band." Very
 much unlike the real Ringo. After all, if Peter had made the choice, he could
have been a very lovable, brave, devoted member of the Order — a real
Neville Longbottom type. Harry Potter is all about choices, remember.
 Now I'm just picturing Dumbledore talking to Ringo Starr and saying things
like: "Exactly! And that makes you very different from Peter Pettigrew!"
 I'm imagining Peter Pettigrew narrating Thomas The Tank Engine.
 Oh dear god.
 I like this theory, except if you look at the personalities Sirius makes a better
John (acerbic, creative, reckless, and with a tendency to push things too far)
with James as Paul (a slightly softer counterpart). Remus works as George,
and I suppose Peter works as a sort of alternate-universe evil Ringo. And,
theoretically, Lily indirectly caused the ultimate "break up" (James's death,
Sirius's imprisonment, Peter's disappearance) by...being there, I suppose, and
having such a special baby. But it was really Peter who (rather violently) broke
them up (which dear Ringo would never do!).
 Haha, I love this comparison. James works well for John, as both were clever,
witty, glasses-wearing brunettes that had an unfortunate tendency to be
casually cruel and bullying (but had a good heart underneath it all), and both
were murdered tragically, leaving behind a young son (two sons in John's
case). They also had a very close relationship with Sirius/Paul, "never seeing
one without the other" and all, and so close that a few people even assume
Ho Yay. Sirius is Paul: James/John's right hand man, talented and popular,
and the handsomest of the group. You could also make parallels with the Paul
Is Dead conspiracy and Sirius being wrongfully blamed for the Potters' deaths,
what with being mistaken for something they're not and so many people
panicking needlessly over it; also, a few (crazy) people who subscribe to PID
think that the replacement Paul was responsible for setting up John's death
(again, crazy), as Sirius was believed to have betrayed James. George works
well for Lupin: perceived as the "quiet" one, and more mature and wise than
their friends, and often overlooked in favour of Sirius/Paul and James/John.
Poor Ringo is then Peter, but as people above have said, it unfortunately is a
good match, as they are small, a bit awkward, and the odd one out among a
very talented group. But of course, Ringo is a lovely guy and a loyal friend,
while Peter is... well, yeah.
o This is EXACTLY what I think. I also believe Peter is an Alternative Universe
Ringo who decided to go through the wrong path, betraying his friends. Like
someone said above, Harry Potter is all about choices.
 Remember when Dumbledore told Harry that all you need is love? Maybe he
shared this philosophy with the marauders...
  So Harry Potter is Sean Lennon?

The Daily Prophet is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is

in temporary alliance with the Ministry of Magic.
This is done purely for profit
 Wow, that actually explains Rita Skeeter perfectly. The parallels bet her
behavior and the phone hacking scandal are obvious. I'm actually a little
ashamed that I hadn't spotted that.

Magic is a metaphor for faith

It seems in the books that Squibs and Muggles are rarely ever good people. If Magic
is instead viewed as a religion, then Muggles take the place of people born without a
religion, Muggle-borns take the place of people who convert to a religion, Squibs are
those who have given up their religion and Purebloods are those who were raised by
their parents into a religion. Also, it seems, that as long as you have a belief that you
can do something, you can. The reason Hermione is talented isn't because of natural
intelligence, but because of having more confidence than Ron or Harry (she reads
"scripture" often).
This also explains why Witches and Wizards normally have no wish to learn of
muggle technology: they believe that their religion provides them with all the
explanations they need. Not even Hermione has an interest in Muggle customs,
despite how she was born into a Muggle family. In fact, the classes studying
Muggles inherently sound like religious-themed Science classes - filled with extra
details so that the theorie that can be proven fits with the "magic" that cannot.
 Some pretty major problems with that theory. If all the good guys have faith,
and most people without faith are bad, it follows naturally that the Harry Potter
books are written from a very anti-atheist standpoint. So why do all the good
guys go on about protecting those different to them? And why do all the major
villains use magic? Oh, and "Not even Hermione has an interest in Muggle
customs"? Seriously? She took extra classes so she could view muggles from
the outside looking in as well as the inside looking out.
o It isn't that ridiculous. Imagine a war/struggle within a church or religion that
was about, among other things, whether to treat atheists with respect or
oppress/disenfranchise/convert them by force. It would be all between
believers but it'd still be clear who the good guys are. Religious people aren't
always at war with those who aren't, you know.
o What evil Squibs are there? Argus Filch is a Squib AND a dick, but he's also
strictly small time. Arabella Figg was a Squib, but she was willing to watch
over Harry Potter for sixteen years, and is hardly evil. Every other Squib is
only mentioned in the background, but none are evil- like Marius Black, who
was disinherited for being a Squib.
It was a previous version of the Millenium Bridge which
was destroyed in the sixth film.
After the bridge was destroyed, the Ministry began an extensive campaign to modify
the memories of everyone everywhere in the world who knew the bridge existed in
order to maintain the Masquerade. Then the bridge was rebuilt, but nobody in the
Muggle world remembered it wasn't the first one. This accounts for why we see the
bridge existing in what should be 1996.
 Totally! And they did such a hasty/shoddy job of modifying memories, the
designers/constructors of the new one forgot about to test for the whole
"lateral vibrations" thing, which is why it was Wobbly when it (re)opened!

Wizarding England is the Wizarding World's equivalent

of Somalia or Darfur
Nasty, run by an alternating series of dictators and warlords, and the Bystander
Syndrome everywhere. Zing!
 It would explain why the rest of the world doesn't bother involving themselves
with England's problems, why no one protests or attempts to the Ministry's
quirks, inefficiences, and outright tyrannies.
 And why noone protests when Voldermort takes over. In comes the new boss,
same as the old boss.
 The Wizarding World is lagging behind technologically by more than a
century, maybe they're also lagging behind in human and civil rights.

o So... since England hosted the Quidditch World Cup, we shouldn't be

surprised if the IOC spurns Rio, Tokyo, Chicago and Madrid in favor of
holding the 2016 Olympics in Mogadishu?
 Well, given that Europe as a whole seems to be the center of quiddich as a
sport, and judging from Karkoff we can surmise that Europe tends to get
dragged into England's messes, its more like if Sudan, Chad, and a few
other countries decided to hold their own Olympics, and invited the rest of
the world to be polite.
 More like football in South Africa during Apartheid, or maybe some more
Euro-centric sport than the Olympics having its World Cup in Germany
before WWII but after the Nazi party took over.
 Perhaps a better equivalent would be Soviet Russia, since the rest of the
world trusts them enough to have major events in their territory.

Wizarding England is considered extremely backward by

the standards of the rest of the Wizarding World
  Aforementioned relative isolation and governmental incompetence.
 Haven't even developed decent Magitek yet.
 It follows, naturally, given participation of France and wherever Durmstrang is
from in the brutal, pointless Triwizard Tournament (as well as the presentation
therein of them and their tech and society level, not to mention Karkoff and
the social implications of his power in Durmstrang) that Wizarding Europe as
a whole is this crappy, and it is ironically the African, Southeast Asian, and
Middle Eastern wizarding communities that are at the forefront, along with
presumably America.

Alternatively, Wizarding England is

considered normal by the standards of the rest of the
Wizarding World
 The reason they ignore all the internal problems - the corruption and racism
inherent even before Voldemort came back - is because the rest of the
wizarding world is the same way and they don't consider these problems. This
overlaps, obviously, with Fridge Horror.

J.K. Rowling's cousin Ben Rowling was the inspiration

for the character of Gilderoy Lockhart.
Remember how a few years ago J.K. Rowling's cousin Ben made a whole lot of
public statements and did a bunch of interviews claiming that the character of Harry
Potter was based on him? And how J.K. flatly denied it? Well, J.K. has also stated on
her website that the only character in the series who was directly and intentionally
based off a real person was Gilderoy Lockhart. She also stated the following: "You
might think it was mean of me to depict him as Gilderoy, but you can rest assured he
will never, ever guess. He's probably out there now telling everybody that he inspired
the character of Albus Dumbledore. Or that he wrote the books and lets me take the
credit out of kindness." Well, claiming to be the inspiration for Harry is not far off..