Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for a community of students in Sociology 101A: "Sociological Theory," in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, Fall, 2008.
Welcome!
This is the informal blog spot for errant questions, random ramblings, and clever musings. For the rest of the semester, we'll use this blog to clarify the work(s) of Lenin, Gramsci and Fanon. Feel free to endlessly post, and don't forget: Theory Rocks!
Will Obama bring the U.S. closer to socialism?
Obama: A Traditional or Organic Intellectual?
Grappling with Gramsci
"The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary mover of feelings and passions, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, 'permanent persuader' and not just a simple orator (but superior at the same time to the abstract mathematical spirit) ..." (Prison Notebooks, 10).
"The relationship between the intellectuals and the world of production is not as direct as it is with the fundamental social groups but is, in varying degrees, 'mediated' by the whole fabric of society and by the complex of superstructures, of which the intellectual are, precisely, the 'functionaries'" (Prison Notebooks 12).
"The superstructure of civil society are like the trench-systems of modern warfare. In war it would sometimes happen that a fierce artillery attack seemed to have destroyed the outer perimeter; and at the moment of their advance and attack the assailants would find themselves confronted by a line of defense which was still effective" (Prison Notebooks 235).
"The massive structures of modern democracies, both as State organizations, and as complexes of associations in civil society, constitute for the art of politics as it were the 'trenches' and the permanent fortifications of the front in the war of position ..." (Prison Notebooks 243).
"... [I]t is obvious that all the essential questions of sociology are nothing other than the questions of political science" (Prison Notebooks 244).
"As long as the class-State exists the regulated society cannot exist, other than metaphorically---i.e. only in the sense that the class-State too is a regulated society" (Prison Notebooks 257).
What did you think of the Rosa Luxemburg film?
Oh No He Didn't: Endless, Evolving and Perplexing Lenin Quotables
"We are in favour of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism" (The State and Revolution, 323).
"Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time become democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence" (The State and Revolution, 373).
"The expression 'the state withers away' is very well chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect ..." (The State and Revolution, 374).
What did you think of Salt of the Earth?
Who got it right?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(58)
-
▼
November
(42)
- A Different Wretched of the Earth!
- Fanon in Context
- Frantz Fanon
- The Thousand Threads and Obama's Economic Advisors
- Theory Barocks Assignment
- Rosa Luxemburg
- The revolutionary visions of Rosa Luxemberg
- Rosa Luxemburg's Fight for Revolution
- Will Obama bring the U.S. closer to socialism?
- Is Obama connected to the state with a thosuand th...
- Lenin on Obama
- Lenin's view of Obama
- Theory BAROCKS!!!
- Lenin and Obama
- Lenin: "Obama and his capitalist tendencies"
- Lenin and Obama,
- Thousand Threads Remain
- Baracks Assignment
- Theory Barocks
- The "Revolutionary" Question
- Lenin says...
- Lenin on Obama
- Lenin on Obama's Victory
- Obama and Lenin
- What would Lenin say about Obama's Victory....
- Lenin vs Obama
- Revolutionary Transitions: Luxemburg and Lenin
- Luxemburg & Lenin
- Lenin believes that Obama’s.....
- what would lenin say
- Obama and Lenin
- Traditional vs. Organic
- Traditional vs. Organic
- Thousand Threads Connected to Congress Too?
- Gramsci on Luxemburg
- Sounds like a Gramsci Studybreak!
- Jeopardy Question: Class in Itself
- Luxemburg meets Burawoy
- Vida de Gramsci
- yay for today's debate!!!
- 1981 PATCO Strike
- Kropotkin's Letter to Lenin
-
▼
November
(42)
1 comment:
Barack Obama’s motto and promise for “change we can believe in,” would not affect Lenin the way it so radically influenced the youth population of this country. Lenin would say that the real power rests behind the scenes where the parliament is there for the sole purpose of deceiving the common people. Therefore, I will argue that Lenin does not see Obama’s victory as an impetus for large-scale change because of the restrictions and limitations posed by the Parliament.
Even though Obama’s victory is in and of itself a symbol for change, Lenin would still believe that he is not the exception. Lenin's point is that regardless of who the people elect to represent them in their state's legislature (e.g. Democrat or Republican, Labour Party or Conservative Party), there will never be any real, meaningful change in policies because there are built-in mechanisms in these institutions that prevent that from happening (330). Regardless of whom the voters elect, nothing will change because the parliament (United State Congress) is just a ‘talking shop’ with no true power (319-320, 342). Lenin argues that Parliament gives the working class the illusion of a free state in that they can have power with capabilities like voting. The power to “recall” and the right to vote are supposed to thwart class struggle, even though they act as false impressions and a shell for capitalism. Even as Obama commits to being a President and leader for the working people, his role depends on and benefits from bureaucracy that exists within the state machine (330). Lenin would question Obama’s economic reforms being instituted, like immediate relief for struggling families because he believes that ties to the capitalist class would take precedence and therefore have such reforms shelved (331). Lenin would argue that Obama’s working class mentality is simply a ploy and that his real function is shown as a member of the ruling class, using parliament as a vehicle to serve the capitalist class and continue to energize the capitalist system (342-343).
For change to even be possible, it would have to come marginally and incrementally. For example, instead of state finances and resources being used on the military there should be transformation to social services. Major shifts are extremely unlikely, if not impossible, and this can be clearly seen in the few decisions that President-elect Obama has made since the election. For example, despite campaigning on a fairly progressive and populist economic platform, his choice of Chief of Staff (Rahm Emanuel, a staunch free-trade proponent and one of the key advocates of Clinton’s welfare reform) and the people he is considering for Treasury Secretary (Lawrence Summers, Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin) seem to suggest that his economic policies will be no more progressive than that of President Clinton’s. Lenin would also say, the same goes with his choice of Defense Secretary: despite campaigning as an anti-war candidate (in fact, if it weren’t for his vocal anti-war stance prior to the invasion of Iraq, there is almost no chance he would have become the Democratic nominee), his list of potential people to fill the spot (Robert Gates, Colin Powell) casts considerable doubt on that. Obama’s platform and call for transformation of our country serves as the shell for the proletariat (working class) to feel like their hardships and troubles will be examined with the hope of solution.
I think Lenin’s criticism of Obama is drastic and harsh because he is looking only at the system that has existed for hundreds of year and not at the individual. I agree with Lenin that Obama needs to accept the ties of the capitalist class to the state and not make it seem like such red tape does not exist. However, Lenin needs to give Obama a chance to overcome the system and continue on with his promises of working class concessions. Lenin is correct to say that we live in a capitalist society with a false democracy only for the rich (374, 383). However, Obama is taking the right steps thus far in building a cabinet to help create more equality among classes and Lenin should sit back for a little bit before he can accuse Obama of contributing to the ruling class force and cycle of the “thousand threads.”
Post a Comment