Friday, November 21, 2008
Lenin on Obama
Lenin would think that Obama’s victory does not mean a victory for the under class because he has now become part of the state. The state is an organ of class rule and the oppression of the underclass that creates order by moderating the collision between the two classes. The state works for the benefit of the capitalist system through keeping the underclass in control. Despite his background as being one from the underclass, since he is now part of the state Obama no longer represents the underclass because of the ‘1000th threads’ that still remains between the state and the capitalists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Lenin would think that Obama’s victory does not mean a victory for the under class because he has now become part of the state. The state is an organ of class rule and the oppression of the underclass that creates order by moderating the collision between the two classes. (315) The state works for the benefit of the capitalist system through keeping the underclass in control. Despite his background as being one from the underclass, since he is now part of the state Obama no longer represents the underclass because of the ‘1000th threads’ that still remains between the state and the capitalists.
In the first chapter, Lenin says that the teachings of Marx and other revolutionary thinkers like him have been diluted to be more acceptable to the bourgeois. (313) Obama’s support of an economic bailout of the large corporations is evidence that Obama’s socialistic rhetoric only gives him the appearance of being socialist but in reality he is only a “petty bourgeois democrat with near socialist phraseology.”
Lenin also states that the only way of liberation for the underclass is possible through violent revolution. Though violent revolution did not occur, the fact that Obama is an elected official is a step to proletariat liberation. However, it can also be seen that Obama is a sort of traitor to the class he used to be part of. He does not speak of the destruction of state power but he is a vessel for strengthening it, thus he has become one who calls for the “reconciliation” of the classes but only oppresses the underclass.
If I were to reply to Lenin I would agree that Obama is no socialist and he is the representative and chief spokesperson of a capitalist state that has a history of oppressing the underclass. Though he cannot act solely in the interest of the underclass and must represent also the interests of the bourgeois, there is hope for the material conditions of the underclass to improve. It is rare that a member of the so called economic underclass has been elected to play an executive role in the state and there has never been a member of the racial underclass elevated to this position. Obama’s victory means that our ideals and concerns have now been placed in the mainstream. This victory literally infiltrates the state with a representative of the underclass. Of course revolution is not at hand but in this age that is highly unlikely, unreasonable, and probably unfavorable to both sides. What this is, however small, is a shift by the state in our direction.
very well thought out and written paper. In your conclusion you end with a thoughtful note: " A revolution is unlikely, unreasonable and probably unfavorable to both sides, ....this is however a small shift by the state in our direction" I am interested in knowing what that direction is? Is the victory of this election really a positive thing for a society, or this just another "protective shell" of the upper class, keeping the working man guessing and thinking its voice is being heard? If it is, how so? Lenin would suggest a revolution by the working class, as a sociologist what would you suggest if given the power to advice our new president?
Post a Comment