Skip to main content

Violence, Social Movements, War?

By

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’”. Of course, my first reaction to this is the question of why violence has to be involved. When discussing revolution, violence is involved. I know people will probably think that it is too idealistic to think that perhaps revolution is possible without violence. But then again, from my readings of Marx he seemed to be an idealist. Is revolution possible without violence? Can anything be accomplished in non-violent revolution? Would it be considered a revolution? Would non-violence just draw it out longer? As you read on, it's reiterated over and over that it is not possible to have revolution without violence (and thinking it makes me a "sham socialist"). So, the question is, what is the difference between revolution and war? Here, I think of Guatemala. I think of the link between the state and the army. "Two institutions mos characteristic of this state machine are the bureaucracy and the standing army." Take the case of Guatemala, for example. The 36 year civil war of the indigenous versus the state AND the ladinos (those of Spanish and Maya descent, the "white people"). Is this a revolution? What constitutes a revolution? Are all wars revolution?

This leads me to an observation. I keep thinking that all of this sounds like a social movement, an organized social movement. It would be interesting to talk about Marxism as a large scale social movement. They organized, the share common ground, and they fight the oppressors (the people they don’t agree with), they are looking for change and justice. I’m wondering what other aspects of Marxism are similar to those of social movements. How is Marxism similar to organized social movements? If non-violent social movements have the capability of succeeding, does communism?

Comments

Crazy Baby said…
hello
the social movements are only manifestations of things that have already taken to limit many ... is the representative voice for non-conformity of a people that don't buy viagra
June 2, 2010 at 7:18 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more