Skip to main content

Alternatives to Oppressor's Tools?

By
It was very interesting to read the whole debate about Social-Democrat versus Communist. This, along with the long discussion about democracy sprung up some questions and thoughts, I'll try to keep them as organized as possible.

Of course Engels was right in disapproving of the term social-democrat. Utilizing this term would do nothing for communism, it would actually be a step backward. Using not only the oppressors tools, but also the language is unacceptable. Interestingly enough, we are so brainwashed by the state and it's heavy indoctrination that it is hard to find ways to resist and revolt without using the state's tools and even perhaps ideologies? This leads me to ask where do we learn other ways of governing when all we've been fed is the idea of a state?

I think in order to have shot at communism deconstruction of capitalism must take place. You take everything that makes capitalism what it is and start deconstructing in order to find out what it's made of and not do that. Find the roots and don't start there again. Find alternatives. Is this possible or do we always have to use the oppressors own tools against him/her in order to have a shot at being free from his/her grasp? Does this de-legitmize or co-opt the revolution or movement? Or is it being clever to use the own oppressors tools against them? If we use their tools, are we making any progress or simply reinforcing their hold?

Comments

Saqib said…
I don't think you will need to deconstruct capitalism for communism to thrive. Capitalism, or what passes for it nowadays, is pretty much unraveling itself and once the world passes through a deglobalization process, many Marxists will have an opportunity to work their supposed revolutionary magic.
February 7, 2010 at 10:25 PM
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