Skip to main content

Revolution at work

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

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 ...

Echoing Malcom

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...