Communism to Modern Social Movements - Coursework Example

Revolutions in the Past and the Present: Communism to Modern Social Movements January 29, The nineteenth and twentieth century witnessed the birth of Marxism that influenced Maoism, Communism, Socialism, and other radical worldviews. These theories were products of class conflict between the masses- primarily the proletariat and the peasantry- and the government and elite social class.1 The people waged war against the exploitation and control of the latter that came about through the capitalistic structure of society.2 As capitalist allies controlled the people through violence, so did the people reacted with violence, raising their concerns through militant armed conflict.3 Radical revolutionary frameworks began with deep-seated inequalities and the demand of the marginalized sectors to fight for a better life, but they worked only when revolutionary ideals and principles were aligned with changing socio-economic, cultural, and political aspirations and needs of the masses, but their relevance is now under question because they cannot respond to the new nature and goals of multicultural societies. Revolutionary theories- Maoism, Communism, and Socialism for instance- existed because of widespread inequalities that these theories considered as inherent in capitalist societies. Bernard D’Mello discussed Maoism under the framework of Marxism, wherein Marxism asserted that capitalism created social surplus that a only a few owned so there was great disparity between the rice and the poor.4 Capitalism did expand the economic opportunities to those who participated in it, but with great sacrifice to the quality of life for many people who lacked access to raw materials, land, and other opportunities that were open mostly to the elite (i.e. King Leopold II’s exploitation of Congo5). Vijay Prashad agreed that capitalism produced poverty and oppression, culminating to the creation of Third World countries that served the interests of First World nations.6 He noted the brutalization that colonizers did to their colonies, such as in Vietnam, Madagascar, West Africa, the West Indies,7 Bandung,8 and Cairo.9 In these countries, the U.S. or other developed nations have been involved in exploiting the poor and their natural resources and conniving with the elite and the government to promote their economic and political interests.10 These scholars explored the repressive imperialist (post-colonial) conditions that shaped widespread poverty and oppression of lower social classes. Other scholars confirmed the social analysis of radical thinkers. Cristóbal Kay wrote about André Gunder Frank, one of the most influential development theorists.11 He mentioned Frank who wrote in 1966 that the developed countries may not be underdeveloped because they could be undeveloped in the first place.12 Frank asserted that modern underdevelopment is an outcome of historical economic and other forms of relations between the satellite nations that are poor and the metropolitan developed nations.13 He noted the development of lack of development in satellite nations.14 Frank said this in the context of external forces that shape underdevelopment in developing countries because of the lasting effects of colonialism on the colonial relations between developed and underdeveloped nations.15 Colonialism can be argued as an outcome of capitalism, but it also expanded capitalism through creating global markets, which inevitably led to the massive exploitation of minorities and disempowered groups, as evident from the shift to slavery to indentured servitude that was present in modern agricultural and manufacturing industries. Biao sees economic equality in the same terms. He said that the nations in North America and Western Europe are the cities of the globe, while Asia, Africa and Latin America are rural communities.16 The Third World is generally the factor of products, services, and profits for the First World. Maurice Meisner focused on the economic, social, and political inequalities in China that resulted to the formation of Maoism and the rise of Chinese socialism.17 In 1949, China was far from the economic giant it is now because it was poorest nation with millions of poor and disadvantaged people.18 The past revolutions it went through did not result to the communist society its communist leaders wanted, but to collusion between nationalist parties and capitalists. These scholars proved the vast disempowerment of the poor because of the capitalist and postcolonial social structures in their nation. The Third World, however, is not passive to its subjugation and paucity, as it fought to free itself from its colonial masters. Every national revolution is distinct in its radical directions and actions, but they basically wanted better life conditions, including sovereign autonomy for colonized territories.19 In “Paris” of The Darker Nations, Prashad quotes several radical thinkers who promoted sovereignty and civil freedoms, and one of them is Aimé Césaire who wrote in his book Discourse that millions of people are arising from slavery to become owners of their destiny because they judged their masters to be lying, and by lying, they are showing their weaknesses.20 Prashad also gave the example of Ho Chi Minh, who defeated the French despite lack of better equipment and financial resources.21 Ho Chi Minh’s revolution is a good model of how guerilla fighting defeated more powerful armies because they captured the support of the masses. These examples indicated that the people were tired of being used and abused, so many of them have established or joined radical organizations that promised and fought for liberation and autonomy. Meisner described the creation of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) by Communism which promised two revolutions, the bourgeoisie and social forms.22 They wanted two revolutions to make up for past failed revolutions and to assert the need for innovation.23 Meisner further narrated the success of the PRC in winning these revolutions. In the beginning of the 1950s, the Communists united China into a new nation-state that has a central government and educated the Chinese to have a strong national identity.24 The antifeudal revolution was also finished by 1952 through the land reform program that freed many Chinese people from socioeconomic oppression.25 China is a communist nation up to now, which shows its success in its revolutionary struggles. This example also demonstrated how the Third World rose against its oppressors. For several decades, the revolution used violence to end violence. The People’s War, as Mao Tse-Tung imagined it, is a war of violence against violence because imperialists and their supporters have weapons that can kill, so the people must react by killing back their oppressors.26 Biao called it as repeating only what the colonizers have done to the colonized.27 D’Mello defended communist violence, such as in Dantewada in the state of Chhattisgarh, where the government used violence against Salwa Judum (SJ) that were against the Communist state.28 D’Mello underscored that the Communists were defending the people from the violence of the SJ and that the Communist party always warned the SJ before attacking them. His main point is that violence is important but not typically used when not needed. Prashad added the example of Madagascar that created the Mouvement Democratique de la Renovation Malagache, which continued to fight the French throughout the ten years of the revolution.29 He is saying that violence has only become a means when it had been the last resort of attaining peace and other social ends. Violence, however, is subordinate to the political goals of communism. D’Mello explained the long-term aspects of communism, which is attaining a political line from the masses.30 Maoist guerillas aimed to win the masses from the rural areas, or base, and then work toward political ends without using violence.31 He asserted that violence is not the end or the whole nature of the revolution because political goals are more decisive in shaping the aims of Maoism. Communism lies in winning the hearts of the people and attaining social ends using various violent and non-violent strategies. Fighting for social change, though brutal, and at times, long-standing, has been an effective way for radical organizations to attain social and political changes in the past. Revolutionary theories and principles, however, worked only when they were aligned with changing socio-economic, cultural, and political aspirations and needs of the masses and if they were willing to go beyond the use of violence and force in attaining new social objectives. Communism was successful in China because it was not Russian Communism or any other form of communism but embedded into Maoism. Biao highlighted that Mao Tse-Tung waged a successful people’s war because he merged reality with theory. He mixed the truths of Marxism-Leninism with the practical realities of Chinese revolution, thus contributing to the enrichment of Marxism-Leninism.32 In other words, Mao Tse-Tung did not embrace Marxism as it is, but adapted it to the Chinese experience and identity. He turned Marxism into a Chinese revolutionary principle for its nationalistic struggles. In China, as in many imperialist states, the countryside was the least controlled, and so militancy was nurtured in these areas, in order for them to encircle the cities and defeat the elite and the oppressive state.33 Biao showed that local conditions, needs, and dreams can be both unique and collective, but that revolutionary action must complement what is unique to the local people. D’Mello agreed that Mao Tse-Tung localized Marxism-Lenninism because he consciously connected the inner-party code of democratic centralism (freedom of dialogue, harmony of action) with the mass rhetoric of being made of and made for the masses.34 The mass organizations that supported party leadership linked Marxist principle with Chinese social networks and practices.35 These authors are right to say that Maoism based its development on existing social relations and the maximizing interorganizational collaboration. It became successful in China before because it responded to what is locally urgent and needed by the people. At present, however, there are questions on radical theories’ relevance to liberal heterogeneous societies with vibrant middle-class population and middle-class aspirations. The importance of the evolution of the revolution becomes apparent. In development and feminist theory, they highlighted the need for evolution in paradigm and strategies for the Third World. Frank underscored the new kinds of revolutions today, new social movements.36 He compared them to termites because they are powerless when separated, but together, they can destroy what is weak in society.37 Termites are far from the envisioned militant and cohesive movement of Marxism. At the same time, the people are moving away from wanting power, as in other revolutions. Frank argued that these social movements rarely want power, and instead, they simply want social space for their development as individuals and groups; also, they are defensive of their rights and not offensive in attaining social structural changes.38 Marxism cannot easily fit into these organizations that are more defensive than offensive in attaining power. In Egypt, Abdul-Rahman called for an inclusive revolution. She stated that revolutions would not be successful if half of the society, the women, is enslaved and unemployed.39 She is concerned of how revolutions respond to the unique needs of women. These women do not necessarily want to change the social order, but gain equal rights and freedoms in all aspects of life. In relation, it is argued that these revolutions do not have any specific response for the needs of the highly multicultural cosmopolitan sector of society. The revolutionary tendency to support violence and traditional means turn off liberal cosmopolitan citizens who only want civil rights and freedoms without war and changing the social structure. The use of violence is losing importance in a world that seeks for non-violent solutions to violent conflicts and follows international human rights. The modern world is becoming more and more heterogeneous too, so ideological differences are no longer derided or criticized, but potentially acknowledged and respected. Revolutionary ideals can have a hard time fitting into the pluralistic societies of today. Revolutionary theories and practices have served the past and current communist states because of the need to liberate themselves from the violent oppressive conditions of their times. Successful revolutions showed that radical theories and actions are most effective when localized to the social, cultural, and political needs and goals of the people. As the demographics and needs of society change and vary, however, radical theories are losing their relevance. Instead, new forms of revolutions are emerging that are non-violent and defensive in nature. These movements are leaderless and do not want national power. Instead, they are revolutions that simply want peace and access to self-development, which, amazingly, can also result to more social changes in the long run, though not in the same direction as communism and socialism. Bibliography Biao, Lin. “The International Significance of Comrade Mao-Tse Tung’s Theory of People’s War.” Long Live the Victory of People’s War! 1965. 117-122. Accessed January 25, 2014, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/ch07.htm D’Mello, Bernard. “What is Maoism?” Monthly Review, 22 November 2009. 135-156. Accessed January 25, 2014, http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/what-is-maoism Kay, Cristóbal. “André Gunder Frank: From the ‘Development of Underdevelopment’ to the ‘World System.’” Development and Change 36, no. 6 (2005): 1177–1183. Meisner, Maurice. “The Maoist Legacy and Chinese Socialism.” Asian Survey 17, no. 11 (1977): 1016-1027. Prashad, Vijay. “Bandung.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, 31-50. New York: The New Press, 2007. __________. “Buenos Aires.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, 62-75. New York: The New Press, 2007. __________. “Brussels.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, 16-30. New York: The New Press, 2007. ___________. “Cairo.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, 51-61. New York: The New Press, 2007. ___________. “Introduction.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, xv. New York: The New Press, 2007. ___________. “Paris.” In The Darker Nations: A Peoples History of the Third World, 3-15. New York: The New Press, 2007. Read More