Skip to main content

Violence, Social Movements, War?

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

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

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 ...

Whose means justifies their end?

I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...