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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more