Author Archives: Michael Babek

Written by Sherv’s Fave

Posted on by
1

I do think the veracity of Ché’s claim is fairly high. No one who is sane just seeks out violence. However, in order to get the thing that they want—in this case, a revolutionary moment—violence may be the only means in which to achieve that goal; nonetheless, if it proves to be possible to reach the same end without putting people in danger then that will always be the route most preferred. Whether a movement is a violent one or not hinges mainly on the reactionary forces—those who are attempting to remain in power. Once they deem it necessary to use violence in order to suppress activism, a whole new can of worms has been opened.

Like an animal backed into a corner, the revolutionary coalition will be free to fire back—usually harder and with much more reckless abandon. As Goodwin would point out, this reversion to violence by the hegemonic group could also prove to be detrimental by the simple fact that the perceived injustice done upon the revolutionary forces will bolster more support from the masses. In this way, violence would serve not to repress the troublesome rebels, but actually to empower them and give them even more numbers.

Interestingly enough, the revolutionary leaders need the masses just as much—if not more— than the masses need them. Without the prospect of mobilization, or simply the means to stage any sort of effective demonstration, an entire movement can go up in flames. Having said that, it is imperative that once the masses are acquired, they be led stage by stage in order to ensure that the correct steps are being taken to give the group the best chance at a favorable result. This can be a slippery slope, as the responsibility (and power) that comes with leading such a large group can lead to bigheadedness and even an eventual tyrannical pursuit of authority. This is what Ché, Allende, and even Baader—any movement leader really—must contend with and learn to balance.

Intellectual Training Wheels

Posted on by
2

Revolutions inherently hinge on the work of intellectuals, but that does not mean that intellectual work is always hinged on the revolutionary path. Regardless of whether this type of “ideological masturbation” is welcomed or not, intellectuals play a unique role in that they have the power to directly influence action. Whereas in the case of Gramsci and some of the other authors we studied, intellectuals are vital in acting as the link between the people and governmental power—having one foot in the working-class realm and the other in the political realm—Fanon and others see intellectual involvement as detrimental to furthering the progression of the movement.

I think it would be blasphemous to claim that a movement could survive—let alone thrive—without a base layer of intellectual work that bolsters it. Without a specific, clear set of values laid out, there is too much possibility for interpretation on the part of the masses. In other words, the intellectual work acts a bit like training wheels, keeping those who are involved in the revolution from falling off the bike and ensuring that they are on the right path towards the ultimate goal. Without these training wheels, people too often would stray—into other’s lanes and off the road altogether—due to a lack of guidance.

For this reason, intellectual leadership is not only important, but present in every revolution we have studied. It must be in order for something to even be able to attach the “revolution” name to it. In some cases, these leaders have been very apparent, and in others, rather under-the-radar. Baader, for example, although not depicted as the most scholarly gifted individual, actually lays out a successful intellectual groundwork through his own actions that help steer the decisions of his fellow RAF members. By consistently acting recklessly, living without fear, and being willing to die, Baader constructs a non-tangible set of values that his counterparts follow. Baader, although one of the most critical of Ulrike’s academic work, ironically inhabits the very role of the intellectual in his group.

Chance the Independent

Posted on by
2

Artists in the music industry, while not shackled to signing a deal by just one singular, hegemonic record label, are constrained by the fact that they must be signed somewhere in order to have success. Although these record labels give these artists a platform to universally sell their music, they take a healthy portion of profits while also having an influential hand—if not the most influential—in the actual creative process of making music. In essence, most artists end up feeling trapped. They are torn between wanting to maintain complete creative autonomy over their own music, and wanting to be signed to a label in order to increase their chances at having monetary/billboard success. This is a common dilemma for artists in the music game, and the problem is amplified even more for up-and-coming stars, who labels tend to exploit due to their lack of experience and established fan base.

Nonetheless, one musician is challenging this hegemonic process by electing to remain independent from record labels altogether. Chance the Rapper is one of the biggest names in the music industry today, and the fact that he is so popular grants him an immense amount of influence. He has turned down multiple offers from different labels throughout the years, choosing to maintain in control of his own music and branding. He has made multiple references to this decision in his songs, stating, “labels told me to my face that they own my friends.” This reference, along with others, has stirred up some backlash from certain labels, as some of them have refused to allow Chance work with some of their artists (thus only further validating the above line). While this method of climbing the music ranks is definitely unorthodox, Chance’s proving that it is in fact possible could lead other artists to attempt to remain independent in the future, which may lead to the fall of these hegemonic industries.

With the Help of the Universe

Posted on by
1

Revolutions, while often believed to be anchored in some aspect of spontaneity, are actually much more intertwined with destiny in my opinion. Arendt describes the actual word “revolution” as being “originally an astronomical term” referring to the “revolving motion of the stars” (Arendt, 35). It is this description of revolutions that I find most intriguing. The idea that they are rooted in something much deeper—something much harder to control—than just an innate human desire for liberation not only renders revolutions more powerful, but it renders them nearly inevitable.

To have something controlled (or at least linked with) the cosmos is extremely influential. Whether you subscribe to the idea of this unlimited power of the universe is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is that many others in the world do. They have done so for centuries (for explaining earthly phenomena and godlike beings) and still do to this day (with the daily use of horoscopes). While it does seem a bit heretical to claim that all revolutions are imminent due to some sort of all-controlling force, I do believe there is immense power in belief. If those who are planning to start a revolution believe there is some larger power on their side—something that practically guarantees them success—they are inherently willing to fight much harder and give up way more in order to ensure victory.

Now, while revolutionaries do not base their plan in the cosmos’ backup, they do base it in something just as uncontrollable: the undying human aspiration for freedom. This drive is strong enough for people to put their lives at risk, oftentimes the argument being that death would bring about more freedom than their current, real-world situation (this reminds me of the example of the Haitian woman who killed over seventy unborn children in order to free them from their future shackles and burdens). Although this human characteristic seems to be very man-controlled, who is to say that the universe does not play at least a small part in this drive for liberation?

Cyclical Revolutions

Posted on by
2

The first thing that comes to mind when mentioning revolutions is the upheaval of a dominant system of abusive power by an oppressed citizenry. This is not an easy task to achieve, thus explaining why not all “nations wronged by history…live with the constant thought of revolution” (Kapuscinski). Moreover, the fact that revolutions are such a difficult thing to execute is the very reason why the study of them is such an attractive topic to many people.

In simplistic terms, revolutions are underdog stories, and this is a genre that has been beloved since biblical times (i.e. David and Goliath). They provide hope and empowerment to disadvantaged groups, and allow for them to cling to a notion of possible change to their own situations; nonetheless, the question remains of what actually happens after a revolution is successfully carried out. Does the aftermath truly outweigh the prior circumstances that initially sparked a change? The answer is often torn, and many times the end of a revolution leaves people wanting more. In other words, the actual act of carrying out a revolution is exhilarating—it makes people feel alive, important, and as if they are truly doing something to improve their own lives and the lives of others; however, once change has finally happened and the corrupt group has been ousted, people are left with a sense of emptiness. This thing that they have devoted so much time and energy to is all of a sudden over.

What do they do now; go back to their normal lives before the revolution? If this is the case (which it oftentimes is), it seems as if the meaning of the term revolution is closer to that of something that is revolving, and these people, while in an attempt to create something new, are actually stuck in a cycle of disempowerment.