Marx seems to think that the proletariat would rise up and conquer their land back for the good of the proletariat as a whole. I would argue that this is a naive understanding of the actions within a revolution. The people don't just wake up one day and decide all at once to revolt all equally. There are leaders and warhawks that push these ideas upon the people and rile them up, taking positions of power within the revolution. This is usually done by those within the proletariat that see this as an opening to gain what they have not had this whole time; not equality, but rather upper-class. They want to be the very thing that oppresses them. This is what leads nations into rebellion, a selfish desire of the few that infects others with ideas of a better existence. In truth though, this sort of action, a revolt, leads only to a new form of the same dynamic regarding the rich and the poor. The only thing that changes in these situations are the names of the oppressors, and maybe some of the policies.
I just don't see how such an action as a revolt can possibly overturn a way of life. Instead, I would propose that the only way to have communism is to have a nation full of well-informed, intelligent and willing people. This seems very unlikely, and nearly impossible, which is why I would say it is a great idea [communism] but it is not practical, as there is no great way in which we as a LARGE group of people can manage to reach it. Thoughts?
I think that Marx would agree that a revolution of education, as it seems you are proposing would be a fantastic thing. But, at the same time part of what defines the proletariat class is the same lack of education that if they received they would no longer be part of the laboring class. Also i don't think that revolutions such as Marx describes them in the past have failed. I mean look at the french revolution that in and of itself while it may have been a blood bath ultimately was a revolution.
ReplyDeleteI agree that lack of education has made masses of people vulnerable to manipulative leadership in the past, and it sucks. The point I made in class about needing young revolutionaries as well as people who have been waiting around for the revolution to actually make change is unfounded in actual history. But I am intrigued, always, by the extent to which this sort of sentiment pervades society - a small example is in movies like V for Vendetta or Fight Club, that have massive followings because of their shared idea of how things should be. Basically, it seems that there's a tendency among many people (especially those who are tired of idiosyncratic leadership - for example, the nuanced political parties of the US) toward simplicity as rule, and it's not a big stretch of my imagination to see many people jumping on board if such an opportunity were to arise.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise some really interesting questions about the power of the population. I think I agree with you too, that real revolution will take place from the top-down. But of course, to set the movement into gear, the populous must elect leaders which will truly keep the interest of the great populous in mind. but look how THATS turned out up til now...
ReplyDeleteI think you are partly right in pointing to a miserable cycle that plagues many struggling nations. One corrupt group is in control until another corrupt group wipes them out and takes their place. However, I don't think this is the only type of revolution. There are certainly cases in which a revolution doesn't just perpetuate the violent dialogue that is already in place (as is the case with war-torn African countries you always hear about), but actually shifts to a new vocabulary and completely changes the world. The American Revolution is probably an example of this.
ReplyDelete