Skip to main content

To Freedom or Not to Freedom

Image
By
A good portion of this week's readings dealt with the idea of freedom.

What did Lenin say about freedom? What did others say to that? What is their own definition and all. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) core concept in life was the notion of freedom. Understanding humanity, its history, political life, and self-consciousness all revolved around this, in Hegel's work and philosophy (source). Eighteenth century philosophy of freedom dealt with the individual citizen, a strand of belief that Hegel did not subscribe to. Hegel believed that such individualistic freedom is tyrannical, and is abstract and purely formal. He said that true freedom is only possible in a political state where millions of differences in wills can be reconciled through reason.

However, as Lenin famously retorted, “Freedom yes, but for whom? To do what?” Does the ability to express one's own opinions and choices constitute freedom? One very small example can look at the scenario where parents encourage children to express their wants and listen to them (a very Western concept for me). But is that freedom? Does that child know what it entails? From here, it can be a logical deduction that freedom requires a certain degree of consciousness.

Consciousness for whom? Another example may include a group of people who are born and raised in the bourgeois class. Do they even know the plights of the proletariat? In such cases, does freedom not become a mere word to play with linguistically?

Finally, freedom that truly does not bring peace to a nation or group, cannot be a freedom to look for and crave. Freedom to not know, and fall into the hands of the cunning capitalistic and hegemonic propaganda cannot be freedom. Inability to question the status quo because of any fear of consequences cannot be freedom, even though the setting is in a free world.

So what is freedom? Do we actually have a choice?
Labels:

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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more