Skip to main content

Is it the act or the actor?

By

Let’s see how meanings of words changes in different (often conflicting) contexts:

(Act: Use of Force) For Bourgeois- Administrative Control. In case of Proletariat- Violence.

(Act: Questioning) For Bourgeois- Asking for clarification. In case of Proletariat- Protesting (at least intended to).

(Act: Use of Arms) For Bourgeois- Peacekeeping. In case of Proletariat- Terrorism.


Thus more than act, who is acting is also very important. When state is consistently and silently (slowly, surely and peacefully) operates its mission to accomplish its agenda; it is “valid.” Even if the subalterns die because of hunger, even if they are deprived of natural resources like water, land, air, even if they are killed (shot) by ‘state’ everyday; it is “justified.”


What is “not justified” then? If they speak out, or if they demand for their right; it is “not justified” [they are supposed to keep silence at any point of time and in every situation]. And if they start protesting, if they become violent (not even with arms); it is “intolerable.” Finally, if they take arms or if they start challenging state apparatus; then obviously it is an act of “terrorism.”[Therefore in order to bring peace and justice ‘we’ (Bourgeois) have the ‘right’ to kill THEM (Proletariat), eradicate them along with their ideology].


The concerns and the suggested theoretical frameworks of Marx, Engels and Lenin are still valid even in this 21st Century. Material inequality, power inequality, and structural inequality (including access of them) is still valid in present scenario. Issues of poverty, hunger, oppression, marginalization are yet to become subjects of a Museum (“We'll create a poverty museum in 2030” so that our grandchildren will go there to see poverty in that Museum - Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner).


Lenin wrote “A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society”. Trotsky suggested that, a solution/ structural change will come when proletariat will seize the State power and will abolish private property as means of production. In such context Lenin stated that, “to achieve its emancipation, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship” and thereby "abolishes the state as state"(Engels).


Though revolution was inevitable to change the societal structure; an ontological debate was there among the theorists: What is the right path- armed revolution or unarmed/ other kind of revolution? Scholars like Lenin and Tortsky proposed a violent (armed) revolution, a life and death struggle instead of any dialogic agreement or parliamentary process of resolving issues. In Lenin’s word ““Disarmament” means simply running away from unpleasant reality, not fighting it.”


I feel the ontological debate is still valid today. Unlike a member of the colonial world we are now a resident of culturally imperialized world; where the rulers have invented many strategies and techniques of oppression and domination other than just application of physical force. Therefore, I believe, an ‘armed’ revolution is not a single option now days; one can perhaps think of other ‘creative’ and ‘strategic’ ways of organizing and operating revolution to accomplish social change.

Comments

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