Skip to main content

Violence, Opportunism and Ideology

By
Where you speak from is Ideology. Where I speak from is Ideology. That much is clear. There is nothing outside of ideology. Often, when we talk of violence, we ask questions of 'means' and 'ends'. Questions of the 'rationale' of activist protests often involve an analysis of whether violence is merely the means to an end or an end in itself. What we need to understand is that any value judgment about violence is not outside an ideological worldview. 'Humane-ness', 'pacificism', and even 'disarmament' are ideological in nature. Disarmament rhetoric of theorists like Kautsky belies their inherent opportunism, according to Lenin. Cries for disarmament and a pacifist politics instantly excludes one from being a socialist, according to him.
I am doing some research on political caricature about China in the contemporary US press, and expectedly, most of the themes are on the violent aggression of China's growth, and the US skepticism of the Chinese missile strength. The same politics that allows US to hoard, stock and sell nuclear arsenals, cries for 'civilian' uses of nuclear technology from the rest of the world. US-laid sanctions related to nuclear weapons uses much the same kind of 'disarmament' jargon; that only a specialized armed militia's violence is justified.

--
Opportunism is a system that the proletarian revolution must target itself at, as Lenin says; any revolution that aims at the destruction of imperialism without targeting the opportunism of the social-chauvinists is doomed to fail. That is because the petty-bourgeois social opportunists are transitory players who seemingly have a stake in the welfare of the proletariat; but when the bourgeois moves to crush resistance from the working class, it attaches itself firmly to the bourgeois, by using terms like 'disarmament.'

In our discussions of communism in this class, we have had reservations about the theory because of our inability to see what the future of a communist society looks like. We prattle on about being 'wary' about such iron-fisted regimes where people will be mere economic slaves, without reading Marx's conception well. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx clearly highlights WHAT a communist society would look like, in as much as he can predict it. The theory of dialectic materialism does not allow him to build utopias. That is not the point of the theory. An understanding of the fact that we live in ideology may help us from making such sweeping statements without really getting down to understanding what Marx is saying.

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