Skip to main content

Questions about violence and Marxism

By

The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of “withering away".

How does Marx expect the proletarian state to simply wither away? Can those who has never tasted power, come into possession and then relinquish power voluntarily? Having once imposed proletarian order after smashing state machinery, how is the new state expected to represent and not reproduce the structures that it has chosen to destroy through violence? I argue that the proletarian state will require and rely on extant state machinery to indoctrinate the citizens. After all the proletarian revolution does away with the bourgeois state but not with the bourgeoisie themselves. Or are the proletarians to conduct a vindictive reprisal and systematically persecute people identified as bourgeoisie?

I can identify with (as a member of the petty bourgeois) the proletariat and the peasantry in so far as derision for the “bureaucratic-military state machine” is concerned. Perhaps my bourgeois background is reflected most in my disavowal of violence as the means to an end. I have read of social transformations that occurred without the violence prescribed by Marx and Co. I ask - was the freedom struggle in India a revolution? If it was, then was it just a bourgeois revolution?


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

Activism, Communication and Social Change

By
Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var
1 comment
Read more