Author Archives: Jeffrey MacArthur

Gramscian Allende

Posted on by
2

Throughout Debray’s interview with Allende it was made clear that he questioned the legitimacy of Allende’s strategy, especially as an “revolutionary” within the institutional framework. I found Allende’s ideals very Gramscian. Similar to critiques that we’ve discussed on Gramsci, Allende’s tactics, in the same way worked within the framework of hegemony in order to create counter hegemony. Though this revolutionary process is unique, can we consider the idea of a counter hegemony to actually be revolutionary in nature? Using civil society as the most powerful tool in creating consensus and capturing the state, like Gramsci, Allende’s tactics are restricted to the confines of the established institutions. But at what point do we consider Allende’s methods to be reform rather than revolution? Though Allende claims revolution is simply, “the transfer of power from a minority class to a majority class,” it is hard to call methods which derive within the framework of the oppressive powers very revolutionary at all. First, As Debray questions Allende, “Don’t you feel that you are gradually becoming institutionalized?” And then As Debray claims, “it has acted within the established institutional framework, and it can therefore be said that what there has been to date is reform.”

However, I’m hardly convinced that democracy was part of Allende’s long term plans. As he responds, “I believe we have used those which open the road to revolution…All the measures we have adopted are measures which lead to the revolution.” In this way, I think that Allende didn’t exactly care about democracy or even creating a democratic popular Government but rather he was interested in utilizing the democratic process as a stepping stone in which to open the door, unlock the gate to a revolution and eventual socialism. Sure Allende may have been attracted to the allure of being revolutionary by unique, peaceful, and democratic tactics, but how much revolutionary change could he have expected to create working within the same institutional framework as his opposition?

The Intellectual in Revolution

Posted on by
1

I think that the question that should be asked on the issue of the intellectual in revolution rather than must movements be rooted in a coherent set of ideas and values is, can anyone (i.e. the subaltern) create that coherent set of ethos?

I think the gangs of horny, sociopathic, seemingly immature gangs we see in Baader Meinhof are a perfect example of the fact that a revolution, a successful one at least, must be rooted in coherent values. In the end of Baader Meinhof the new era of “revolutionaries” are disconnected with the leaders and the group seems to be more of a nihilistic terrorism rather than a revolution, shown in the ending scenes. We’ve talked about the revolution being revolved around consolidating a movement through tactics of participation. However, it is not just the crowd that facilitates a successful revolution, but rather the uniting mission, the strengthening initiative that forms the crowd in the first place. However, as we’ve read, the issue is not wether or not these movements need a set of ethos but rather who has the skill set, the ability to create this mission? For Gramsci, he made (in my opinion) the elitist assumption that the masses needed the intellectual. Whereas minds like Fanon or MKV suggest that the intellectual is not an asset to the consolidation of revolutions. For instance Fanon claims that the intellectual is only fully educated once he’s taken a walk amongst the people and learned from them.

All in all I think that it’s dangerous to generalize that each revolution needs the same recipe to be successful as each context has different circumstances. However, in my mind, violence complicates revolution in making the uprising a zero-sum game, as we will learn reading Erica Chenoweth. In these circumstances, I think the risk is higher and thus the need for strategic tactics is heightened. In a community such as Haiti, where the slave community was steeped in battle not theory, the intellectual (in the form of the free colored individuals), was needed to form a sovereign nation. However, in a context of MKV’s argument, the masses had the “organic” mediation of the school teachers to provide the role of the intellectual. The intellectual is needed as there will always be a need for a totalizing vision, however, where that intellectual takes form depends on the context of the movement.

The LA Rebellion: Intellectually Inorganic

Posted on by
1

In the 1960s, a group of African American students at UCLA created a collective of films, unlike most had seen before, which would be coined as the LA Rebellion. With sporadic plots and symbolism, the L.A. Rebellion featured films such as Killer of Sheep by Charles Burnett that utilized neorealist influences and jazz music. With the cinematic arena being whitewashed, the L.A. Rebellion was as a vessel for change in the movie industry. The films contributed to the depathologization of black music, the deepening of a positive societal image of blackness, and as opposition to a epidermalized cinematic industry. The L.A. Rebellion combatted hegemonic holds that white actors and white movies had on cinematic arena. In some respects, the L.A. Rebellion was more of a reformist movement than a revolution because of the fact that the film collective did not look to desolate the entire industry but rather expose and thus uplift film from dishonest, negative black representation. The students created an awareness to the way film represents black culture which has since helped to create a more racially accepting industry.

However, even through their efforts we can see black films like Boyz n The Hood still being the standard for popular black film in the U.S. It is not until recently that we see films such as Black Panther and A Wrinkle in Time that feature consistently positive and honest black representation. Looking at the movement through Gramsci’s lense it is clear that the L.A. Rebellion was lacking a organic intellectual. Sure they could make all the revolutionary films they wanted, but without a vessel in which to bridge the elitist, white cinematic community to the L.A. Rebellion filmmakers and their “radical” works, they effectively preach to the choir. Once cannot force another to watch a film let alone appreciate its message, especially if that message is politicized and racialized. Gramsci would argue that the L.A. Rebellion could have be far more effective for black cinema if it had an OI.

Revolutions as Inevitable or Random

Posted on by
3

First off, I think generalizing Revolutions as strictly random or strictly inevitable is an impossible task as each case is different in many ways. However, a passage that has stood out to me in recent readings was in Ardent’s piece. It reads, “Almost every revolution which has change the shape of nations has been made to consolidate or destroy inequality.” The reading also says, “this reality was biological and not historical…a change whose movements are automatic, independent of our own activities, and irresistible” As for Ardent she believes that Revolutions are a matter of human nature. The idea that humans will always fight for their dignity in the face of inequality. Similar to what we read the first week in Shah of Shahs about that pebble that contently nags at our side. So it seems, as long as there are oppressed peoples, as long as inequality defines a nation, there will be revolution. Sure it will be upon the back of an extraordinary event, a moment of viability when the impossible seems possible, but the “overwhelming urgency” that Ardent speaks of will always be engrained in our human nature.

So are revolutions inevitable or random? Can they be both? Consider our study of Haiti. Sure it may have shocked the French masters when the men they once trusted as loyal turned on them and their families. However, the cogs of the uprising had be silently turning for quite a while.

Why Revolutions?

Posted on by
4

Revolutions are extraordinary. They are by surprise. They are unpredictable. As Shah of Shahs reads, “Revolt is a great experience, an adventure of the heart.” Revolutions are stimulating, they provide a rush of youthful thought, of unified sacrifice. However, when revolutions end people are lost. They seep into their monotonous lives once again. This can explain why society is always chomping at the bit for revolution. As we’ve discussed in class, at its first opportunity, revolt will occur. This is because people long for that rush of revolt. Why Revolutions? Because for many, revolutions are empowering. They are a way to break the boring trends of everyday life.

Not only do Revolutions provide an “extraordinary event” as Kapuscinski would say but unify communities of people who normally wouldn’t bat an eye at one another. It is the adrenaline of unified defiance that makes up the tempting allure of Revolution. Furthermore, people will always be enticed by the human connection that revolution forces upon its participants. The Unthinkable Revolution reads, “People who used to confront each other with hostility…now, because of their common struggle, have become kinder to each other and treat each other with generosity.” Revolutions require sacrifice and sacrifice requires trust, a trust that is strengthened through connection. Kurzman argues that people are dying to participate, that human nature yearns for the courageous act of participating in rebellion. Revolutions are a vessel for empowerment, unification, connection and agency. As Kapuscinski would say, people will always have that pebble that nags at their side, waiting for the chance to be revolutionary.