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

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