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