Friday, November 21, 2008

Theory Barocks

This short essay argues that Lenin would view Obama’s victory as a successful effort by the state in fooling the common people, when in fact Obama could be representative of the proletariat dictatorship.

2 comments:

Megan said...

Lenin would view Obama’s victory as the parliamentary democracy’s success of fooling the working class (p343). Obama’s platform of change is the perfect shell to convince capitalists that they are in control and the common people that their concerns are being addressed, thwarting class struggle (p319). His election would not represent change to Lenin because Obama retains ties to the state (p330). Lenin writes that Americans must destroy the state machinery (p337). A violent revolution by the people is required for this destruction of the state, which did not take place (p315). Instead, the government is still allied with the stock market and banks, as illustrated by our recent financial crisis (p319). Obama’s cooperation with the military and plans to keep troops in Afghanistan illustrates his utilization of the state’s instruments of oppression (p316). In essence, the American people elected Obama to “represent and repress” them (p373).

If Lenin were alive today, he may consider Obama’s role as a fulfillment of the proletarian dictatorship and the first phase of socialism. The “violent revolution” could be represented by the increased political participation this election garnered in response to previous political machines. Capitalism creates certain preconditions for communism including universal literacy and training of workers, which Obama plans to initiate by investing in early childhood education, creating more jobs, and simplifying the process for illegal immigrants to become citizens so they can fill jobs that are in demand (p382). One of Obama’s goals is government transparency which he seeks to implement by creating a database for people to track official activity. This coincides with Lenin’s condition for people to keep accounts of capitalists (p383). As Lenin writes, the proletariat needs the state in order to resist opponents and Obama could be representative of the proletariat dictatorship needed to battle the interests of the elite bourgeois and rid Washington of the “muck of all ages.” Obama’s victory speech addressed that change may not occur in one week or even one term, mirroring Lenin’s own uncertainty about the length of the transitional phase and its successive phase (p375). Like the theory of “the present day state” is fiction, Lenin might find that the idea of a socialist transition may also be fluid, influencing him to recompose his attitude towards the state, our new president, and the term socialism itself (p368).

Rena said...

Although Obama is planning on making concessions that are slightly socialist in nature, our entire system is not a dictatorship of the proletariat or the fist stages of socialism. There was no sudden revolution that occurred for Obama to take power. He won through a democratic election. He played by the rules of the system to win. He did not challenge the system entirely; breaking it down to seize power. His campaign platform was different than all previous presidential candidates; however it was still a legal political campaign, not a violent revolution. The stances Obama assumes on issues are liberal, but he is not a socialist. Our system might transition into organized capitalism, but Obama is not the leader of the dictatorship of the proletariat advocating for a transition to socialism. He does plan to fix some of the problems that the Bush administration created, but that is not necessarily ridding us of the "muck of all ages." The capitalist class will remain strong and influential in the political arena. The thousand threads remain and are active.