Author Archives: Jake Porath

Slow And Steady Wins The Race

Posted on by
2

The case study of Chile serves as an interesting example of whether or not the implementation of a Marxism is possible through democratic means. In the case of Chile, it would have been unwise to attempt to bring about transformative change through the use of violence. Additionally, if the result of Allende’s election was any indicator, the majority of Chileans were against such radical change. Despite this, to advocate for the stance that violence should have been employed as a tactic for crushing Allende’s opposition, ignores the fact that war would have simply precipitated a swift and overwhelming reaction from the Chilean military. A government is only as strong as its ability to actually enforce its agenda. Without ever maintaining control of the military, or maintaining a majority of society to signal greater legitimacy, the implementation of a radically transformative Marxist agenda seemed destined to fail. It seems to me that Allende was simply too radical for his time, and that Chile was simply not ready for the Marxist agenda that Allende was propagating.

Without the military’s backing, or the majority of society’s support, what could Allende have done after getting elected? A frontal assault on Chiles military would have been fatal, yet history has shown that Allende’s strategy of utilizing an institutional approach had failed as well. Perhaps the solution should have been to actually move slower and more gradually. Of course, this would have stripped Allende of his revolutionary status, but in my estimation, it is better to do some good, moving slowly in the right direction, instead of attempting to move too fast, and getting ousted. In Allende’s own words, “Socialism cannot be imposed by decree”. Since the majority of Chileans did not want socialism, maybe Allende should have exercised more caution in his approach.

A War of Words

Posted on by
1

The line between what separates a civil war from a revolutionary war is often unclear, as civil wars often maintain some of the same characteristics as revolutionary wars.  In the context of American history, why is the war that followed America’s declaration of independence from Britain referred to as the American Revolution, when the war that followed the Confederacy’s declaration of independence from the Union referred to as the American Civil War? Both the American Revolution and the American Civil War were technically secessionist wars. The Confederacy, like the 13 American colonies, adopted new and unique constitutions when seceding. Additionally, in the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army not only fought the British military, but also the Provincial Corps, a sizable army comprised of American Loyalists. Who decides what an internal armed conflict is labeled as, the press, the government, the victors of the war, or possibly external nations?

The meaning of a revolutionary war, and the meaning of a civil war, both carry different implications, the former being venerable, attractive, and progressive, and the latter being vile, unappealing, and degenerative. Ultimately, in conflicts that involve prolonged armed internal struggles between a government and its people, how a conflict gets portrayed has less to do with the specific aspects of the war itself, and more to do with the agendas of those who maintain the intellectual and political power over the press, both during the war itself, and following it. To call an armed internal struggle a civil war, denies rebels with a sense of legitimacy during the war. In the Baader Meinhof Complex, the members of the RAF saw their war against “the fascists and the imperialists” as revolutionary. While the RAF’s goal was to start a revolution, those who maintained control over the international press, and the German press, labeled the RAF as rebels, thugs, and terrorists. Historically, the opinions and the values of the RAF never reached the mainstream political consciousness of the West German state, and no massive revolution was ever able to transpire to topple the government. Germany maintained control of the media, both during their struggle against the RAF and after the RAF’s defeat; therefore, the actions of the RAF have continued to be labeled in derogatory terms.

America ultimately was able to spark a massive armed insurrection against Great Britain, and was able to successfully secede. Since the Founding Father’s had a fairly autonomous government, civil society, and control over the internal press prior to the revolution, when the Founders declared their independence in 1776, they were able to manage the image of the war. Obviously, the Founding Fathers were able to establish a government, and successfully fend off the British military. The American victory in the Revolutionary War meant that American’s would be able to control the historical image of the war as well. In the case of the Confederacy, while the South was able to spark a massive armed secessionist war, they were unable to win, and therefore the Union was able to manage the historical image of the war. If the Confederacy had won, would they have looked back on their secession from the North in revolutionary terms? Although the answer to this question is unclear, it is clear that those in power of the government and the press, often utilize words as propaganda, and as a way of managing their current and historical image.

Big Baller Brand: An Unconventional Model

Posted on by
3

Each year on November 8th, thousands of the best high school basketball players sign their National Letter of Intent, officially handing over their rights to the NCAA. While many Division I basketball players receive a full scholarship to attend their respective university, the NCAA prohibits athletes from seeking compensation for the use of their names, images or likenesses in television broadcasts, video games, and memorabilia sales. Additionally, besides for their scholarships and meager stipends, athletes are prohibited from being compensated by their university. Additionally, last year, the NCAA posted $1.1 billion in revenue, while individual high major basketball programs often see tens of millions in annual revenues themselves.

Participating in college basketball, which effectively economically disenfranchises players from profiting from their own likeness, has become a “common sense” form of hegemonic domination. When high school coaches refer to “playing at the next level”, they are ubiquitously referencing playing in the NCAA. While the vast majority of college athletes will never have a marketable enough image for the NCAA rules to have a significantly negative economic effect on them, for “Blue Chips”, or the top players in each graduate class, this rule is highly unprofitable. In the United States, the NCAA has hegemony over the sport of basketball, especially since the NBA shut out the best high school athletes from being able to turn professional straight from high school, with the institution of “Article X” in 2005.

However, one dad is attempting to tear down the entire model that the NCAA has dominated for decades. Led by the bombastic, outlandish, and imposing patriarch, Lavar, the Ball family has taken the basketball world by storm. Not only has Lavar figured out how to dominate the mainstream news cycle, but his merchandising company, Big Baller Brand, has achieved extraordinary success.  While the oldest Ball son, Lonzo, took a traditional route, playing through high school and one year at UCLA before making it to the NBA, Lavar Ball calculated that it would be in his two younger sons’ best interest to fully circumvent the NCAA. By avoiding the restrictive NCAA, and placing his sons LiAngelo and LaMelo in a professional league in Lithuania, the two younger Ball brothers have been able to use their popularity to sell Big Baller Brand merchandise with a surprising amount of success. While LiAngelo and LaMelo’s basketball skills are debatable, their celebrity is undeniable, as they have amassed 2.3 million and 3.6 million Instagram followers respectively. Though it is unclear whether or not they will spark a “revolutionary” trend, their actions can certainly be characterized as counter-hegemonic.

Destiny vs. Probability: Assessing the Likelihood of Revolution

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of destiny or determinism is one that has confounded even the greatest philosophers. Instead of becoming entangled in the philosophical concerns surrounding the aforementioned notions of destiny and determinism, perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is whether revolutions are “accidental affairs” or inevitable.

I do not believe revolutions are inevitable, because inevitability is somewhat of a binary condition. If a revolution is “inevitable”, it implies that a revolution is going to occur no matter what, and that a revolution is unavoidable. The issue with the rigid nature of inevitability is that it struggles to account for the possibility of circumstantial change. For example, if a regime exercises reforms that satisfy its citizens, is a revolution still inevitable? Instead, I believe that it is more helpful to think of revolution in terms of probability, a far more fluid abstraction. The notion of probability is aptly able to account for every type of situation, from the more stable of societies like the United States, to the more volatile of countries, like Venezuela.

Another advantage of understanding revolutions in terms of probability, is that probability can actually conceptualize the notion of “accidental affairs”.  In societies where revolutions are highly probable (almost inevitable), a seemingly isolated incident can have a much higher chance to accidentally spark a revolution. Meanwhile, in societies where citizens are generally satisfied with their government, a similar accidental incident would most likely not provide the same incendiary spark that could lead to a full scale revolution.

The Last Resort

Posted on by
4

In regimes where corruption, tyranny, and inequality are pervasive, the ruling class is usually able to live in prosperity through consolidating the wealth and resources of their country, while the general population is left struggling, disenfranchised, and hopelessly impoverished. While the call for revolution is often motivated by the aforementioned conditions of poverty, oppression, and general abuse, Kapuściński keenly observes that “revolutions erupt rarely” (Kapuściński, 103). Perhaps instead of asking why revolutions, we should be asking why not revolutions?

Kapuściński asserts that the first phase of revolution begins with an awakening, characterized by a population becoming aware that the abuses of their government “are not the natural order of this world”.  While Kapuściński asserts that the consciousness of injustice will first provoke an outcry for change and progress, he eventually cites that if change is not created through other means of protest, a population will rebel as a “last resort”.  However, Kapuściński never truly elaborates on this notion of a last resort. In order for a person to participate in a revolutionary activity, they must be willing to sacrifice their life for their cause. They must be willing to look down the barrel of a gun, and indignantly disobey authority potentially at the expense of their life.

Revolution erupts when the consequence of dying fighting for change becomes a more favorable recourse, compared to the alternative of inaction. The stakes for both the revolutionary and the regime are literally life and death, and there can only be one winner. Moreover, it is irrational for a revolutionary to believe that they stand a chance to win, outgunned by a repressive state apparatus. Revolutions should be ubiquitously suicidal, and while they often are, David can occasionally topple Goliath. The elements of a revolution, the irrationality, the desperation, and the possibility for the impossible to occur, are what makes revolutions so alluring.