Reading Mazumdar, I was struck by the risk of revolution being used as simply a placard without a substantial thought and method behind it. Mazumdar puts a distinction between revolution and revisionism. He describes revisionism as being, "wholly dependent upon the big leaders and, as a result, they end whenever those leaders belonging to the intelligentsia choose to withdraw them." I recall discussing this in class, about the possibility of a revolution occuring without leadership and at the time it seemed improbable to me. Since then, however, we have seen somewhat of a revolution occurring before our very eyes in Kyrgyzstan, a leaderless one at that, so this viewpoint has changed.
Mazumdar seems to be pretty direct in saying that propagandizing should be the way to go to convince the masses to start a revolution from the bottom up. I am not sure how easy that would be in reality. Propaganda from what I know is usually a strategy employed by states with resources. In different situations I guess this propaganda can take the form of education and organizing.
Mazumdar seems to be pretty direct in saying that propagandizing should be the way to go to convince the masses to start a revolution from the bottom up. I am not sure how easy that would be in reality. Propaganda from what I know is usually a strategy employed by states with resources. In different situations I guess this propaganda can take the form of education and organizing.
Comments