Skip to main content

Reasoning with violence, revolution..

By
Like Shaunak, last class's discussion resonated with me for a long time. On one hand, to me much of it was naivety, maybe we are too fond of our own voices and ideas. But at the same time, I privilege the voices as we have to negotiate this thought of violence as the means to an end. Trostky writes, "but the revolution does require of the revolutionary class that it should attain its end by all methods at its disposal – if necessary, by an armed rising: if required, by terrorism." We must keep this thought in hand when entering into this area of whether violence is an integral part of revolution. Of whether in decrying violence, we are behaving as pacifists, Menshevik, Kautskyites, hypocrites who talk of democracy and disarmament in answer to the imperialist violence unleashed by the bourgeois.
In Lenin's account of the proletariat revolution, the ultimate aim is demolishing and abolishing the capitalist state structure and in its place establishing a proletariat state. A proletariat state would then unleash the same violence, the same repression that was meted earlier to them by the capitalists; and they would unleash it on the capitalists. Trotsky and Lenin explain that ultimately, we should understand that the majority of the proletariat are ruling and repressing the minority portion of the society called capitalists..(.for the greater good?). This account of revolution needs violence. In course of time, the proletariat state withers away and there is no state...and then? The experience of Paris commune is analyzed and referred to by the authors.. but what is the Paris commune all about? Does it not end in failure and then execution of most communards? A bold uprising, establishment of a commune albeit with some Kautskyan approaches ( a la central bank takeover..) and limited within the Parisan quarters which was overrun in some time. So, what position should I take?...not a Kautskyite, not an armed revolutionary, not a meek oppressed proletariat, not a pacifist wanting democracy from an unequal society......My preferred position then would be to join the bourgeois reveling in the structural and other violence and oppression of the proletariat and justify it to myself within my own ambit. So, if I can support the bourgeois violence (whether silently or vocally or through "real" and "feigned" ignorance), why can I not wholeheartedly support the proletariat violence.
I managed to read Ward Churchill's article which Mohan mentioned in last class. Link here: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html. It does raise many pertinent questions which we cannot ignore but at the same time the article makes me uncomfortable. I cannot blithely accept that violence is a necessity. It is easy to reason why US should be attacked by certain elements of the Islamic world but not so easy to condone it. At the same time, its also not easy to condone the imperialist violence which is claiming hundreds, thousands, millions of lives worldwide even as we sit here arguing our asses off on elements of Marxism and revolution. How many of us in this room have seen/ indulged in physical violence? How many of us have inflicted physical violence on others? On a larger note, if we do adopt the Marxist approach, is it really possible to "cleanse the human society of all the infamies and abominations of capitalist exploitation"? We, who do not object to a simple act of violence or exploitation happening before our eyes and are content to cogitate/ argue till blue in face within four walls, how can we reason with revolution or revolutionary tactics of Marxism.


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