Mohan J. Dutta: Critical Insights on Culture and Society

In the previous class we briefly touched upon the topics of the explicative and predictive powers of Marxist theory in general and materialism in particular. In reference to materialist standpoint and Artz (2006) article, I find myself struggling with the three concepts of Explanation/ Prediction and Determinism. While Lee as well as materialism clearly posits that material forces have a critical role to play in almost any conspicuous social change they also maintain that the historical circumstances do not alone determine the course various phenomena eventually take (it is here that Artz (2006) leaves the scope for individual action). The explanation offered by materialism of historical phenomenon is understandably in retrospect. Given these tenets I find myself unable to understand how and where does Marxist theory derive its predictive aspect. In connection to this, but somewhat at a tangent, I also (may be naïvely/ incorrectly) find the notions of predictability and non-determini

At an atypical note in a forum like this, I want to talk a little bit about my thoughts on freedom, hegemony and communication. It is a logical topic for the week, as we read about state and revolution, side by side with the bifurcated view of communication--it is at the same time the site and process of oppression and resistance, in other words. This topic is more salient to me now because I was reading, for another course, Gramsci, which gave me nightmare vision of the author comparing hegemony to the freedom of prisoners within the surrounding walls, the freedom that he 'enjoyed' for the last eight years of his life. From the plethora of random ideas, I somehow delineated several strands of thoughts that I want to share with my classmates, and hopefully can generate some discussions from you. 1. About freedom, which is not one, but several. There's the reading of "freedom" in the sense of "free press" as expressed in John Milton's Areopagitica .

Dana Cloud seems to be making an important point when she talks about the schism between Luxemburg and Lenin in their respective conceptions of 'freedom' as it played out amongst the Bolsheviks and in the German Socialist party. I find myself aligned to Lenin quite a bit; and I think we need to question this unproblematic term, 'freedom' which we seem to be in a rush to define, defend, illustrate and protect. Too often is Marxist theory condemned and castigated for the excesses of Stalinism. That argument, as Deepa Kumar so eloquently puts it, is inadequate, shoddy and fundamentally reflects a refusal or an inability to engage with Marx & Engels. It's like saying that Buddhism as a philosophy is opposed to peace because Sri Lanka and Burma are in the throws of civilian struggle. While Lenin and the democratic centralists believed that the party had a central role in mobilizing a class consciousness -something that Lukacs, a committed Leninist took to it's ph

This may be because I'm new to all this literature, but I have a burning question. I understand the journey to communism as a circular one, one in which power is the main driving force. So, the proletariat revolution "smashes" the bourgeois state and takes control under a proletariat dictatorship. They need to have the control of the state in order to ward off and shatter the resistance of those formerly in power (the state). My question is when is it time for the dictatorship to dissolve? I know they talk about the whithering away. But, how is this to happen? Organically? Will those in power decide to give up their power? Power corrupts, are they capable of giving up this power? How do they know when to give up the power? How long must they wait for the bourgeoisie to give up their resistance in order to have a pure communist state? Centuries?Is this where countries such as Cuba are? Awaiting the resistance to die down? I found it very interesting to think a

Market economics and deterministic authoritarian values (and approaches) are the two important driving forces of neoliberal ideology. This reductionist consumerist epistemology consistently tries to portray existing social relationships and values in terms of ‘supplier and consumer’. Therefore, now days the globe is under intense influence of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG); which essentially threatens the philosophy like public services and investments (e.g.- in health and education), and welfare society. Apart from that, the notion of uncertainty and culture of fear (especially in the individual domain), that are associated with it shape/ affect our mental orientation and thought process of everyday life. The existence and influence of neo-liberalism can be felt in learning environment too (schools, colleges, universities, vocational institutes everywhere). It seems the basic motto (based on social Darwinism) is “survival of the fittest”: Here ‘survival’

As a forerunner to this posting - I am responding to week 2 readings. It is interesting that this week's readings discuss freedom, a topic we briefly (though loudly) discussed in class. Freedom is such a loaded word, and my personal experience with this word has created a connotation that does not match that of the readings or many of my peers in class. Is it freedom to have your choice of whether you want to work? Is it freedom to have the right to say "No"? An even more important question to ask is, when your freedom infringes on the freedom of others, where do we draw the line? To answer some of these questions, it is important first to define what 'freedom' even means. Websters dictionary defines freedom as "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I am not sure if this type of freedom actually exists. We are all influenced and controlled by external forces. Whether these forces be the opinion of others or a gun to our head, o

The Preface to the German Edition of the Communist Manifesto of 1872 states that "The practical application of these principles (the principles of the Communist Manifesto) will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II." - This line, I believe, is loosely representative of the forms of socialism that seem to be gaining ground today. Especially relevant in this context, is the exercise of the principles of socialism by Evo Morales, the current President of Bolivia. Though Movimiento al Socialismo, his political party, is clearly a socialist enterprise looking to nationalize industry and promote an equitable distribution of national resources, it has nonetheless been brought into power through a constitutional and 'democratic' process. [It is however, not to be forgotten that

A good portion of this week's readings dealt with the idea of freedom. What did Lenin say about freedom? What did others say to that? What is their own definition and all. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) core concept in life was the notion of freedom. Understanding humanity, its history, political life, and self-consciousness all revolved around this, in Hegel's work and philosophy ( source ). Eighteenth century philosophy of freedom dealt with the individual citizen, a strand of belief that Hegel did not subscribe to. Hegel believed that such individualistic freedom is tyrannical, and is abstract and purely formal. He said that true freedom is only possible in a political state where millions of differences in wills can be reconciled through reason. However, as Lenin famously retorted, “Freedom yes, but for whom? To do what?” Does the ability to express one's own opinions and choices constitute freedom? One very small example c

I really appreciated reading Lenin’s “The State and Revolution”. As someone that does not have a lot of experience with Marxism, it’s nice to hear from Lenin and his accessible language. He did a great job of explaining the major concepts that comprise Marxism in a manner which was easily understood. Also, it was very refreshing to read his corrections of all the common societal misconceptions of Marxism; in a way, it puts it in a frame and context that allows the reader to understand the main goals more clearly. It takes care of the misconceptions or mistakes that are commonly associated with Marx and deals with it head on and right away. One concept I would really enjoy discussing is the violence needed in a revolution. “It is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this ‘alienation’”.

So this week I’d like to focus predominantly on Zizek’s discussion of “actual “ and “formal” freedom. To recap, Zizek defines the difference between the two by explaining “formal freedom is the freedom of choice WITHIN the coordinates of the existing power relations, while actual freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates.” I find these definitions not only narrow-minded, but also a bit naïve given the fundamentals of human existence. My major contention is that in discussing the Leninist freedom of choice, both scholars make a fundamental assumption that stems from the belief that there is true (as we say with a capital T) choice. We already discussed the difference between choices within structures and choice between structures, but again all such conclusions are still based on the presupposed notion of choice. The question I pose is, is there really ever choice without structure? To expound this idea a bit, think in general abstract terms.

"To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [ source ]

The term proletariat assumed a new meaning in Engels’ document on communism. The miserable working conditions which inspired him to write, …“ But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians …”; those miserable working conditions have deteriorated even more. As per the definitions advanced, a classic proletariat would be someone who lives only by his/her salary and “whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business; in a word, on the fluctuations of competition” (Engels, 1847). So, one could say, in today’s world, a factory worker, a bus driver, a pizza-delivery man, a professor , a multinational executive all could qualify to the sobriquet as long as they do not invest and live on its profit. No…the meanings have become more complex. Engel’s conceptualization was in a certain frame of reference and as situations change, so the interpretati

I am coming from a state/ region of India which is under communist rule for last 35 years. Starting from implementing land-reform to emphasizing small scale industries many pioneering initiatives were taken by communist parties. And, from own experience, like all other student of my state, I also got free education up to high school (10+2) level. Though I have participated in a few informal discussions earlier, for me this is the formal academic introduction to Marxist theory; which I am sure will help me to understand/ analyze many initiatives/ decisions of communist governments/ institutions and the future possibilities of application of this theory. It is interesting to notice that, more than 150 years after conceptualization; Marxist theory remained relevant and still considered as one of the core concepts in present day’s economy. The theory was written in the 2nd half of nineteenth century in the context of post-industrial revolution scenario of Europe; therefore as a non-Europe

A few weeks ago I witnessed a battle. One between ideology and experience. The debate was about communism (or maybe socialism?). Two friends came to the table with what seems an innocuous discussion about what "lived" communism was about. It was interesting because both parties had a different conception of what communism is. One, whose family had labored under a corrupt communist regime and another whose family for generations had believed enough in the ideology to give up their privileges for common good. This instance, in retrospect provided me with an interesting lens on what the dialectic within the communist culture would be like. It seems almost akin to the debate within religion that between ideology and experience; between the goodness of all things spiritual and the perversity of human nature. It seems to me that socialism and communism are parallel to the concept of philanthropy in religion and religious fundamentalism.

Steve Macek's piece on the Marxist framing of intellectuals hit many of the right notes. The first noteworthy point made was how despite the filtration of Marxist concepts into much of mainstream rhetoric literature and communication circles, we haven't experienced such a transition of intellectuals in the political process. Early Marxist figures would employ much of a hands-on approach to ensuring that ideas translate into reality through political organizing and involvement in social movements. The frequent interaction of the intellectual with 'the common man,' as Macek asserts, revitalizes the movement towards social and economics justice. The paucity today of politically active intellectuals, both in the communication and broader academic circles, has less to do with the deficiencies in the critical communications theories than it does with the restructured system of academia. Institutions housing intellectual opinion are more often publicly subsidized, creating a

Competition is also an evolutionary trait that all species share. From the sperms seeking to fertilize ova to the day we die, the process of life and death reflects competition in biological, social, economic, and cultural contexts. What then does it mean then to abolish competition? What are we really doing away with when we do away with competition? What are the social and economic consequences of abolishing competition whether by struggle, decree, or legislation? I frequently find myself hearing and using the words competition and innovation together and in context. Innovation refers to doing something new or introducing newness to something or the doing of something with the implicit assumption being that the new will lead to something better. For an industry, innovation usually refers to the process of converting ideas into services and products that generate value for the consumer and thus help the organization become profitable (amass capital). It seems evident that not everyone

Taking a step back away from the discussion of communism and capitalism, I couldn’t help but question why Engel’s argument dichotomizes the two concepts as if no other forms of social order can exist in societies. Granted it would take extensive thinking, planning, trial and error, I suggest that it is not an either or selection. When has anything that involves a large group of people ever been simply black and white? Many of the points that have already been discussed in the blog thus far point to the shortcomings of Engel’s argument. If communism will use all instruments of production and distribute all products “according to the common agreement”, I also question how such a “common agreement” will be reached? Even if every person is allowed an equal voice, only one voice can be acted upon for the public and that can only go over well if everyone agrees to whatever it is that voice calls for. In communism the social order will have to be hierarchical in some nature because their will

I'm making the claim that Marx's Communism will not work in today's world, for its heavy undertone of techno-determinism. If the impetus of social political improvement is based on the rise of productivity brought by technological advancement, then it follows that technological advancement will necessarily increase the productivity in that sense. As Marx put it, the new technology would lead to new productivity and subsequently new needs among the masses. It might be true before and at his time, when technological inventions were made at the grassroots production level to reduce the intensity of manual work and increase output. Technology means completely different things now. It is controlled by big corporations, and instead of working in the direction to increase productivity, it is almost entirely focusing on the increase of need and desire. Thus, technology advancement will no longer be able to achieve what Marx believed it could achieve to bring along Communism: a prod

In theory, the concept of communal property sounds like a good plan, but when examined in detail, I question whether it is a viable option. For example, Engels outlines the steps he believes should be taken to lead towards a communist society. Engels calls for "Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.)," and "Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people." Who will control the expenditure and use of this capital? What will be done with this money? How will the emigrants and rebels support themselves and live if all of their possessions have been confiscated? If we are relying on the government to use this capital to create an "expansion of production," history (and our national debt) has shown us that this is an unlikely outcome. Engels also calls for "Education of all children, from t

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8151230.stm Wondering if any of my Indian friends have any thoughts on him. "He made Communism look respectable"...

I couldn't make it past "The Principles of Communism" without several questions that may or may not appear obvious to others, but as for me, I need to know before moving along and taking the rest in. For example, competition , appeared to be one of the devils of society, one that communism must crush in order to be successful. Competition according to Engels was partially at fault for classism. This made me wonder how we conceptualize competition in our society today. Is this a cultural phenomenon. I remember as a child competition showed its face every day, from getting a star in the elementary school classroom to fighting to be a the top of the class in high school or winning the swim meet. How does a society function without competition? What are the detriments of competition? Is all competition evil? Secondly, a lot of aspects of communism seemed to be very modern and progressive. For example, the idea of globalization was already mentioned: "In this way,

Again, is it coincidence that they've used the photo of a communist politician? See article here.

I too was struck while reading Engels and Lenin on the apparent common underpinnings found in both the capitalist and communist ideologies. In Engels' writings, he discusses the parasitical nature of the bourgeois class whose monopoly on the means of production is cited as the chief reason for underdeveloped condition of the masses. What was conspicuously absent from his list of principles was the manner of governance which was to take shape under the perceived communist state. What democratic safeguards would be put in place to ensure that the bourgeois would not be replaced by another "dominant political class" capable of abusing the confiscated property and redirected wealth? Engels' hesitates to embrace the strategy of armed revolution and insists that "society" will seize the means of production, but a society represented by whom? Ultimately, the principles as communism as spelled out by Engels suffer from the same fatal flaw that lies at the heart of t

Why do Americans hate "Communism"? It is ironic that Communism is posed as "that which is not pro-Capitalism", or more precisely, "that which is against everything within a Capitalist society, including YOU!" largely by the fact that it was on the wrong side of the iron curtain. For Marx, Capitalism is not only the object, but also a prerequisite for the communist revolution, as he pointed out at the end of the Principles of Communism, "it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it." If we look at his historical materialism theory closely, then it is clear that Capitalism is one step in the overall upward moving trend of human social evolution, it is incidental that we, as Marx observed, was positioned in the era when Capitalist arrangement of production was/was going to be no longer fit for the productivity level. It is not true that Communism is set to

Reading about the material dialectic discussed by Lee Artz, I got flashes of how this dialectic operates in the contemporary political environment. In the wake of the earthquake in Haiti, it has become evident how a template for disaster management has been developed - Anderson Cooper flashes across the CNN screen in the wee hours helping us make sense of it all; this is followed by Obama (or whoever the current leader of the free world is) pledging a hundred million dollars in aid, topped off with singer-songwriters churning out disaster-specific tunes for the week. According to Artz, "..a vital part of social relations is communication - the symbolic and practical means for organizing, understanding, and changing our social relations: interacting with each other, we communicate, we produce communication, we use communication, and we as communicators change in the process." (p. 14) Not to detract from basic human decency, but one does think of what is under the hood in s