PHL323H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Inferiority Complex, Nonviolence, Nigger
Przeworski: Social Democracy as a Historical Phenomenon
Can revolution be achieved by democratic means?
Ultimately, no
○
•
Socialist democratic parties want to stick to their socialist policies
They are having trouble broadening their appeal to the majority of the
vote
○
If they compromise their ideals, they would let capitalist ideals seep in
○
“The revolution which is incumbent upon you is possible only to the
extent that you will remain yourselves, class against class, not knowing
and not wanting to know the divisions that may exist in the capitalist
world.”
-Jules Guesde, 1890
This sows seeds of division
○
•
Marxism was not an idea borne of the members of the working class
themselves
But of members of higher classes thinking about the working classes
○
So the working classes were inherently sceptical
○
So the parties started working towards proximate, short term goals
○
•
Socialist parties rebranded themselves as workers' parties
Wider appeal
○
•
But Proletarian majority never came to be
Prediction did not eventuate
○
•
New rebranded parties could:
Broaden appeal and get more votes, or
○
Stick to original goals and never gain power
This was clearly doomed
§
Parties oscillated between the two though
§
○
•
Engels, original Marxist, said to recruit the peasants
Interests of middle classes paralleled that of proletariat
○
Professional middle class - open ranks
○
•
By broadening to professional middle class, 80% of population is to be
captured
But again, this did not work
○
Lost almost half the vote in Belgium, UK, etc.
○
•
Now, they must offer proximate goals which
Are relevant to all classes, and
○
Can be achieved in one term
○
•
We can see that socialist parties are starting to play the exact same game as
more traditionalist parties
Almost bribing voters to get more votes
○
Rather than changing economic and social structure of society
○
No longer appeals to workers as workers, but as individuals
○
•
Political conflict is no longer a class conflict in this way
Consumerist politics rather than class politics
○
Inching away from social revolution
○
Just playing by the rules that are in place
○
•
System of bemoaning and regretting
Again with the oscillation
○
You don't win your way so you switch to conventional means, don't win
that way and switch back
○
•
But then can we integrate the two means?•
Socialism sees taking the means of production as private property as the
ultimate cause of poverty and inequality
Ultimate goal: socialise means of production
○
E.g. WWI + antebellum period with French armament
○
•
They knew what their ends were, but weren't so clear on the means of how
to get there
Ambiguity between socialisation and nationalisation
○
•
Socialisation = production by the people
Still has antagonism between producers and consumers which
socialism wants to avoid
○
•
Nationalisation = turning that means of production over to the people
Means putting means of production in the hands of government
bureaucrats
○
Empirical evidence that this is unsuccessful
○
•
Again, they knew what they wanted, but not how to get it
So they formed investigative commissions and waited
○
The results didn't come at good times, didn't come, were wrong, etc.
○
•
Although they never won, there were instances in which they were invited
into coalitions
But then they were stuck between pursuing socialist goals and never
having power or ignoring them while keeping power
○
•
One compromise was to stay in government but pushing for small reforms
that will ultimately lead to socialism
This assumes the next govt. will not recall these reforms
○
However this did not alter the economic landscape, actually reinforcing
it
○
This was self-undermining
○
•
The socialist parties just started looking like average parties
They used to have a unique standpoint, trying to remove private
property and means of production
○
Once they gave up the ultimate goal, they lost one of the main things
that set them apart
○
The workers had less and less motivation to vote for them
○
•
Until the Keynesian revolution, where he believed:
Sometimes the government needs to interfere in the private sector,
otherwise it can become inefficient
○
People should not save more than they need
○
Governments should use deficits to stimulate employment during
recessions
Rather than engaging in austerity measures, you should take out
more government debt to generate employment and
infrastructure, jump-starting the economy
§
○
•
This justified government intervention
Starts to look like something of a compromise position
○
Something like socialism but within a capitalist system
○
•
Stimulates development of the idea of a welfare state
Government should implement a security net for the population
○
Robust unemployment, single-payer healthcare system, cheap/free
education, etc. within a capitalist system
○
•
Differences between welfare + socialist state
Complete nationalisation is unnecessary
○
Increase in aggregate demand by increasing employment
○
•
Only need to nationalise as much as is necessary
Also a way of achieving the moral goals of socialism
Not letting people starve, etc.
§
○
Allows government to orient towards general welfare
○
•
Nationalisation limited to primary industries
banks, energy production & distribution, coal, iron, steel, transport, and
communication
○
With the sole exception where bankruptcy threatens employment
○
•
Limited role of state - providing goods that should be given to everyone if
given to anyone
Everyone must have access to communication, transport, healthcare,
etc.
○
Primary industries are also the industries that should not be run at a
profit or perhaps cannot be run at a profit
Rational, private entrepreneur would not run these things (unless
he's Varkey in Dubai)
§
○
Vital role in healthy capitalist society, providing "raw materials"
○
•
Socialist democratic parties that adopt Keynesian economics look like this:
The state operates the primary industries that are public goods. 1.
The state regulates the private sector via anti-cyclical policies.
Increase spending, cut taxes during a recession.
§
2.
The state mitigates the distributional inequalities of the market.
Via social welfare.
§
3.
•
So social democracy is no longer reformist
It is incapable of leading into socialism
○
Not compatible with economic expansion
○
It would result in economic contraction if they revolted
Things would get worse before they got better
§
○
So even when they can institute a transition to socialism, they back off
in fear
○
It just doesn't look like it's going to happen
○
•
Either return to "alternative tactics", return to Stalin and Lenin or pursue
social democracy
•
Colonialism
What is colonial resistance?
What does it take to resist a colonial regime?
○
•
What form should it take?•
What is the goal?•
Franz Fanon
1925-61•
Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist, philosopher, revolutionary•
Considered himself French until his first trip to France when he was called a
N*****
•
On Violence
Decolonisation = reorienting society so that it begins anew
Replacement of one species with another
○
•
Two inherently antagonistic forces:•
The colonized, who live in a ‘raw, repressed, and reckless’ state. 1)
The colonizers, who are aware of a ‘terrible future’. (‘the eventuality of
change’).
2)
Colonial situation is inherently unstable
Only way to keep it in place is by exercise of violent force
○
•
But they have mutually consistent goals•
For there to be these groups, you need a colonial system in place
For them to fill the functional role, you need the system
○
•
First meeting is a violent occurrence
Continuing to exist together is tumultuous
○
•
Is this a definition or an empirical claim?
If the former, and no current situation meets Fanon’s conditions, then
there is no colonialism today.
○
If the latter, then there may be colonialism today – and perhaps
Fanon’s claim should be amended.
○
•
For decolonialisation to take place, violence needs to occur
This is obvious to the colonised
○
Two wrongs make a right here
○
Maintains colonial rule
○
•
Violence becomes part of the everyday life of the colonised subject
Always some kind of violent action
○
•
Colonialism dehumanises colonised
So that violence is natural
○
•
Material conditions of the sectors of society are vastly different
Poverty of the colonised
Live like animals
§
○
•
Also there is a racial dimension
Marxist discussion of class should extend to race
○
•
Violence as necessary
Psychological view of colonisation
○
Colonised internalise colonisers' belief that they are inferior
Only way to get rid of this is through violence
§
If peaceful, the colonised mind-set & inferiority complex remains
§
○
“At the individual level, violence is a cleansing force. It rids the
colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing
attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self- confidence. [....]
Violence hoists the people up to the level of the leader.” (p.51)
Shows of strength are empowering
§
Psychologically expelling colonisers
§
Otherwise they will be "re-oppressed"
§
○
•
Colonised bourgeoisie = colonised intellectuals in dialogue with the
colonialists
Who have adopted the values of the colonisers and seek harmony
○
But colonisers aren't interested in coexistence after decolonisation
They either don't want anything to do with society or they want
to maintain their superiority
§
○
Colonial values have seeped in
○
•
Colonisers aren't interested in the colonised people's healthy independence
They've taken what they wanted and don't want to help clean up
○
The colonised bourgeoisie imitate the colonisers in order to fix this
They want to traverse the distinction between coloniser and
colonised
§
But they never can, they will always be colonised
§
It's a race thing (like how he got called a n****** in France)
§
○
•
Colonised intellectual wants to be one of the colonisers
And that is the manifestation of the anger of the colonised intellectual
○
The colonised masses demand the colonists' place
No desire for harmony
§
○
•
The colonised intellectuals' desire to retain colonial values leads to a derailing
of decolonisation
Nonviolence is itself a colonial notion
○
The intellectuals, who overwhelmingly dominate leadership, preach
nonviolence
They say we need to reach a peaceful agreement
§
○
•
Fanon thinks such an agreement is not only detrimental, but also impossible
“colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with
reason. It is naked violence and gives in only when confronted with
greater violence.” (p.23)
○
The colonized intellectuals and businessmen don’t want to be seen as
‘barbaric’, so they adopt the colonialist’s values , investing them in the
colonial system
○
Rendering them incapable of leading the fight against it
○
•
The colonised inherently know that their freedom is only achievable through
force
•
Pitfalls of National Consciousness
Even violent revolutions can have pitfalls - why?
Inability to rationalise popular action
○
Intellectually lazy middle class
○
•
Thus nationalism is not the governing by the (formerly) colonized people with
regard to the required social relations
•
Rather, nationalism becomes the transfer into native hands of the unfair
advantages instituted by the colonizers.
•
Thus the national bourgeoisie become the colonialist bourgeoisie’s business
agent.
•
This also happens with the landed proprietors – and exploitation of
agricultural workers intensifies.
‘Work hard for your country’.
○
•
Even if you have a violent uprising, if you let the old system stay in place,
colonialism doesn't go anywhere
He's becoming a socialist in front of our eyes
○
•
The existence of the bourgeoisie inhibits decolonisation•
You have to ignore the bourgeoisie phase of development
Can we skip this?
○
We can only answer this through revolutionary action
○
•
We have to close the road through decentralisation
The economic conditions resulting from a centralized administration
(e.g. the existence of a capital city) facilitate the rise of a
national/colonized bourgeoisie.
○
•
The idea of a capital city is a colonial idea
To reject the idea of a capital city is to reject the idea that a people
cannot govern themselves
○
•
The back-country should be emphasized
E.g. Capital city of Brazil is a city like all the way back near the coast
○
We need to go beyond this and not have a capital city in the first place
○
•
Lecture 4
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
3:15 PM
Przeworski: Social Democracy as a Historical Phenomenon
Can revolution be achieved by democratic means?
Ultimately, no
○
•
Socialist democratic parties want to stick to their socialist policies
They are having trouble broadening their appeal to the majority of the
vote
○
If they compromise their ideals, they would let capitalist ideals seep in
○
“The revolution which is incumbent upon you is possible only to the
extent that you will remain yourselves, class against class, not knowing
and not wanting to know the divisions that may exist in the capitalist
world.”
-Jules Guesde, 1890
This sows seeds of division
○
•
Marxism was not an idea borne of the members of the working class
themselves
But of members of higher classes thinking about the working classes
○
So the working classes were inherently sceptical
○
So the parties started working towards proximate, short term goals
○
•
Socialist parties rebranded themselves as workers' parties
Wider appeal
○
•
But Proletarian majority never came to be
Prediction did not eventuate
○
•
New rebranded parties could:
Broaden appeal and get more votes, or
○
Stick to original goals and never gain power
This was clearly doomed
§
Parties oscillated between the two though
§
○
•
Engels, original Marxist, said to recruit the peasants
Interests of middle classes paralleled that of proletariat
○
Professional middle class - open ranks
○
•
By broadening to professional middle class, 80% of population is to be
captured
But again, this did not work
○
Lost almost half the vote in Belgium, UK, etc.
○
•
Now, they must offer proximate goals which
Are relevant to all classes, and
○
Can be achieved in one term
○
•
We can see that socialist parties are starting to play the exact same game as
more traditionalist parties
Almost bribing voters to get more votes
○
Rather than changing economic and social structure of society
○
No longer appeals to workers as workers, but as individuals
○
•
Political conflict is no longer a class conflict in this way
Consumerist politics rather than class politics
○
Inching away from social revolution
○
Just playing by the rules that are in place
○
•
System of bemoaning and regretting
Again with the oscillation
○
You don't win your way so you switch to conventional means, don't win
that way and switch back
○
•
But then can we integrate the two means?
•
Socialism sees taking the means of production as private property as the
ultimate cause of poverty and inequality
Ultimate goal: socialise means of production
○
E.g. WWI + antebellum period with French armament
○
•
They knew what their ends were, but weren't so clear on the means of how
to get there
Ambiguity between socialisation and nationalisation
○
•
Socialisation = production by the people
Still has antagonism between producers and consumers which
socialism wants to avoid
○
•
Nationalisation = turning that means of production over to the people
Means putting means of production in the hands of government
bureaucrats
○
Empirical evidence that this is unsuccessful
○
•
Again, they knew what they wanted, but not how to get it
So they formed investigative commissions and waited
○
The results didn't come at good times, didn't come, were wrong, etc.
○
•
Although they never won, there were instances in which they were invited
into coalitions
But then they were stuck between pursuing socialist goals and never
having power or ignoring them while keeping power
○
•
One compromise was to stay in government but pushing for small reforms
that will ultimately lead to socialism
This assumes the next govt. will not recall these reforms
○
However this did not alter the economic landscape, actually reinforcing
it
○
This was self-undermining
○
•
The socialist parties just started looking like average parties
They used to have a unique standpoint, trying to remove private
property and means of production
○
Once they gave up the ultimate goal, they lost one of the main things
that set them apart
○
The workers had less and less motivation to vote for them
○
•
Until the Keynesian revolution, where he believed:
Sometimes the government needs to interfere in the private sector,
otherwise it can become inefficient
○
People should not save more than they need
○
Governments should use deficits to stimulate employment during
recessions
Rather than engaging in austerity measures, you should take out
more government debt to generate employment and
infrastructure, jump-starting the economy
§
○
•
This justified government intervention
Starts to look like something of a compromise position
○
Something like socialism but within a capitalist system
○
•
Stimulates development of the idea of a welfare state
Government should implement a security net for the population
○
Robust unemployment, single-payer healthcare system, cheap/free
education, etc. within a capitalist system
○
•
Differences between welfare + socialist state
Complete nationalisation is unnecessary
○
Increase in aggregate demand by increasing employment
○
•
Only need to nationalise as much as is necessary
Also a way of achieving the moral goals of socialism
Not letting people starve, etc.
§
○
Allows government to orient towards general welfare
○
•
Nationalisation limited to primary industries
banks, energy production & distribution, coal, iron, steel, transport, and
communication
○
With the sole exception where bankruptcy threatens employment
○
•
Limited role of state - providing goods that should be given to everyone if
given to anyone
Everyone must have access to communication, transport, healthcare,
etc.
○
Primary industries are also the industries that should not be run at a
profit or perhaps cannot be run at a profit
Rational, private entrepreneur would not run these things (unless
he's Varkey in Dubai)
§
○
Vital role in healthy capitalist society, providing "raw materials"
○
•
Socialist democratic parties that adopt Keynesian economics look like this:
The state operates the primary industries that are public goods. 1.
The state regulates the private sector via anti-cyclical policies.
Increase spending, cut taxes during a recession.
§
2.
The state mitigates the distributional inequalities of the market.
Via social welfare.
§
3.
•
So social democracy is no longer reformist
It is incapable of leading into socialism
○
Not compatible with economic expansion
○
It would result in economic contraction if they revolted
Things would get worse before they got better
§
○
So even when they can institute a transition to socialism, they back off
in fear
○
It just doesn't look like it's going to happen
○
•
Either return to "alternative tactics", return to Stalin and Lenin or pursue
social democracy
•
Colonialism
What is colonial resistance?
What does it take to resist a colonial regime?
○
•
What form should it take?•
What is the goal?•
Franz Fanon
1925-61•
Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist, philosopher, revolutionary•
Considered himself French until his first trip to France when he was called a
N*****
•
On Violence
Decolonisation = reorienting society so that it begins anew
Replacement of one species with another
○
•
Two inherently antagonistic forces:•
The colonized, who live in a ‘raw, repressed, and reckless’ state. 1)
The colonizers, who are aware of a ‘terrible future’. (‘the eventuality of
change’).
2)
Colonial situation is inherently unstable
Only way to keep it in place is by exercise of violent force
○
•
But they have mutually consistent goals•
For there to be these groups, you need a colonial system in place
For them to fill the functional role, you need the system
○
•
First meeting is a violent occurrence
Continuing to exist together is tumultuous
○
•
Is this a definition or an empirical claim?
If the former, and no current situation meets Fanon’s conditions, then
there is no colonialism today.
○
If the latter, then there may be colonialism today – and perhaps
Fanon’s claim should be amended.
○
•
For decolonialisation to take place, violence needs to occur
This is obvious to the colonised
○
Two wrongs make a right here
○
Maintains colonial rule
○
•
Violence becomes part of the everyday life of the colonised subject
Always some kind of violent action
○
•
Colonialism dehumanises colonised
So that violence is natural
○
•
Material conditions of the sectors of society are vastly different
Poverty of the colonised
Live like animals
§
○
•
Also there is a racial dimension
Marxist discussion of class should extend to race
○
•
Violence as necessary
Psychological view of colonisation
○
Colonised internalise colonisers' belief that they are inferior
Only way to get rid of this is through violence
§
If peaceful, the colonised mind-set & inferiority complex remains
§
○
“At the individual level, violence is a cleansing force. It rids the
colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing
attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self- confidence. [....]
Violence hoists the people up to the level of the leader.” (p.51)
Shows of strength are empowering
§
Psychologically expelling colonisers
§
Otherwise they will be "re-oppressed"
§
○
•
Colonised bourgeoisie = colonised intellectuals in dialogue with the
colonialists
Who have adopted the values of the colonisers and seek harmony
○
But colonisers aren't interested in coexistence after decolonisation
They either don't want anything to do with society or they want
to maintain their superiority
§
○
Colonial values have seeped in
○
•
Colonisers aren't interested in the colonised people's healthy independence
They've taken what they wanted and don't want to help clean up
○
The colonised bourgeoisie imitate the colonisers in order to fix this
They want to traverse the distinction between coloniser and
colonised
§
But they never can, they will always be colonised
§
It's a race thing (like how he got called a n****** in France)
§
○
•
Colonised intellectual wants to be one of the colonisers
And that is the manifestation of the anger of the colonised intellectual
○
The colonised masses demand the colonists' place
No desire for harmony
§
○
•
The colonised intellectuals' desire to retain colonial values leads to a derailing
of decolonisation
Nonviolence is itself a colonial notion
○
The intellectuals, who overwhelmingly dominate leadership, preach
nonviolence
They say we need to reach a peaceful agreement
§
○
•
Fanon thinks such an agreement is not only detrimental, but also impossible
“colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with
reason. It is naked violence and gives in only when confronted with
greater violence.” (p.23)
○
The colonized intellectuals and businessmen don’t want to be seen as
‘barbaric’, so they adopt the colonialist’s values , investing them in the
colonial system
○
Rendering them incapable of leading the fight against it
○
•
The colonised inherently know that their freedom is only achievable through
force
•
Pitfalls of National Consciousness
Even violent revolutions can have pitfalls - why?
Inability to rationalise popular action
○
Intellectually lazy middle class
○
•
Thus nationalism is not the governing by the (formerly) colonized people with
regard to the required social relations
•
Rather, nationalism becomes the transfer into native hands of the unfair
advantages instituted by the colonizers.
•
Thus the national bourgeoisie become the colonialist bourgeoisie’s business
agent.
•
This also happens with the landed proprietors – and exploitation of
agricultural workers intensifies.
‘Work hard for your country’.
○
•
Even if you have a violent uprising, if you let the old system stay in place,
colonialism doesn't go anywhere
He's becoming a socialist in front of our eyes
○
•
The existence of the bourgeoisie inhibits decolonisation•
You have to ignore the bourgeoisie phase of development
Can we skip this?
○
We can only answer this through revolutionary action
○
•
We have to close the road through decentralisation
The economic conditions resulting from a centralized administration
(e.g. the existence of a capital city) facilitate the rise of a
national/colonized bourgeoisie.
○
•
The idea of a capital city is a colonial idea
To reject the idea of a capital city is to reject the idea that a people
cannot govern themselves
○
•
The back-country should be emphasized
E.g. Capital city of Brazil is a city like all the way back near the coast
○
We need to go beyond this and not have a capital city in the first place
○
•
Lecture 4
Wednesday, February 1, 2017 3:15 PM
Document Summary
Socialist democratic parties want to stick to their socialist policies. They are having trouble broadening their appeal to the majority of the vote. If they compromise their ideals, they would let capitalist ideals seep in. The revolution which is incumbent upon you is possible only to the extent that you will remain yourselves, class against class, not knowing and not wanting to know the divisions that may exist in the capitalist world. Marxism was not an idea borne of the members of the working class themselves. But of members of higher classes thinking about the working classes. So the parties started working towards proximate, short term goals. Stick to original goals and never gain power. Engels, original marxist, said to recruit the peasants. Interests of middle classes paralleled that of proletariat. By broadening to professional middle class, 80% of population is to be captured. Lost almost half the vote in belgium, uk, etc.
