wazua Sat, Jan 11, 2025
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

2 Pages12>
Revolutionary Consciousness
masukuma
#1 Posted : Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:23:14 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 10/4/2006
Posts: 13,821
Location: Nairobi


Political Revolution + Cultural Revolution
All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
Rahatupu
#2 Posted : Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:47:19 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.
tycho
#3 Posted : Saturday, February 25, 2017 12:41:28 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.
Rahatupu
#4 Posted : Saturday, February 25, 2017 9:26:19 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.
tycho
#5 Posted : Sunday, February 26, 2017 4:54:05 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Why is that?
tycho
#6 Posted : Sunday, February 26, 2017 5:15:03 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Not all deconstruction is post-modernist, and deconstruction isn't necessarily a narrative.
Rahatupu
#7 Posted : Monday, February 27, 2017 7:41:29 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Why is that?


Because it is essentially dialectical in nature
tycho
#8 Posted : Monday, February 27, 2017 8:25:04 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Why is that?


Because it is essentially dialectical in nature


Dialectic isn't limited to materialism. It's also in language.

Is language, material?
Rahatupu
#9 Posted : Monday, February 27, 2017 8:56:40 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Why is that?


Because it is essentially dialectical in nature




Dialectic isn't limited to materialism. It's also in language.

Is language, material?


Human history is a history of material relations hence revolution is intricately tied to the dialectics that define mayerial class struggle. Language is confined to abstract realities.
tycho
#10 Posted : Monday, February 27, 2017 12:57:20 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


In revolution materialism is at the heart of it all its the blood, heart and soul....not language and post modernist deconstruction narrative.


Why is that?


Because it is essentially dialectical in nature




Dialectic isn't limited to materialism. It's also in language.

Is language, material?


Human history is a history of material relations hence revolution is intricately tied to the dialectics that define mayerial class struggle. Language is confined to abstract realities.


History, is a narrative. A linguistic faculty. An abstraction. The abstraction determines materiality. And probably vice versa. It's possible to speak of a 'language- material' dialectic.

For example is there a dialectic between 'English and oil'?

Man and nature are probably in a dialectic mediated through language.

Obviously, for me the base is language, the superstructure, society and it's economic system.
Wakanyugi
#11 Posted : Monday, February 27, 2017 6:35:32 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


Most revolution is counter productive because of its emphasis on the illusiory 'them versus us' division, which not only creates victimhood but ends up allocating much of the peoples power of agency to their so called tormentors.

True revolution occurs when we appreciate that we need our tormentors as much as we need our lovers. Revolution then happens not so much from overcoming the 'oppressor' but when we overcome our need for such oppression - of which the perpetrator is simply our chosen agent.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#12 Posted : Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:18:27 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


Most revolution is counter productive because of its emphasis on the illusiory 'them versus us' division, which not only creates victimhood but ends up allocating much of the peoples power of agency to their so called tormentors.

True revolution occurs when we appreciate that we need our tormentors as much as we need our lovers. Revolution then happens not so much from overcoming the 'oppressor' but when we overcome our need for such oppression - of which the perpetrator is simply our chosen agent.


This is an interesting point. If possible check on Hannah Arendt's 'On revolution' on further exploration of this idea.

But there's one more step in regarding the matter of revolution: that is, revolution bears the linguistic relation of coming or going back to the beginning as things were initially. For me the question becomes either a restoration of rules of relation or a restoration of states and relations.

A restoration of rules of relations seems to be more plausible than that of restoring states and relations...
Wakanyugi
#13 Posted : Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:10:53 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
tycho wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
IMO class consciousness precedes revolutionary consciousness. Until there is a critical mass of class conscious revolutionaries organize in the classical Maxist/Leninist dogma localised in the formation of Maoist/Castroist realities can we talk of revolutionary consciousness.


Class consciousness may also be counterrevolutionary. Mainly because it entails a language and narrative of oppression being affirmed.

Castroism, if there's such a thing, needs some scrutiny. For example, what were the effects of US sanctions on Cuba? How did Cuba respond? Is there a unique economic model running the country? I'm not sure about Castro as yet.

Nevertheless the idea of revolution goes beyond class conflict and into linguistic domination. Maybe 'semiotic domination' is the right expression. What are the language systems we use and how do they work, what are the inputs and outputs? Our language systems ooze with presuppositions that are almost always affirmed. In fact, it may only be possible to have positive class consciousness under a deconstruction of language.


Most revolution is counter productive because of its emphasis on the illusiory 'them versus us' division, which not only creates victimhood but ends up allocating much of the peoples power of agency to their so called tormentors.

True revolution occurs when we appreciate that we need our tormentors as much as we need our lovers. Revolution then happens not so much from overcoming the 'oppressor' but when we overcome our need for such oppression - of which the perpetrator is simply our chosen agent.


This is an interesting point. If possible check on Hannah Arendt's 'On revolution' on further exploration of this idea.

But there's one more step in regarding the matter of revolution: that is, revolution bears the linguistic relation of coming or going back to the beginning as things were initially..


Overtime I have come to quietly appreciate the point that the symbolism carried in language is neither random nor coincidental.

Revolution indeed is, literally, a return to a prior state, not the radical break with the past that most of us think it is. But then so are all things and events in our reality - 'simply a circling back to a home base, or a yearning for the same.'

Perhaps this misunderstanding could explain why all revolutions seem fated to end in disappointment and most revolutionaries - from Jesus to Che to Kimathi - end up as tragic heroes.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Rahatupu
#14 Posted : Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:38:20 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.
Wakanyugi
#15 Posted : Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:04:51 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Maybe so, may no.

Reminds of the joke about the three Jews and existentialism:

1. Marx - it is all about class struggle
2. Freud - no, it is all about struggle with self
3. Einstein - wrong you two, it is all relative

Your preference depends on perspective, context and background - and whether you preferred Toivo, or KM hooch in College.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:33:32 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Revolution itself is the creation of utopian world.

A key presupposition of revolution is cyclicity. But how is cyclicity significant in politics and history? I think there are sufficient grounds to challenge this idea. For example, how was the idea of cyclicity in politics introduced and, would such a metaphor be apt?

The idea of revolution then is an abstract idea created to find solutions to a present that is dissatsfying. It's almost always an oversimplification that things in fact can go back to their beginings, and even, re-write history.

Class struggle, is another thing. Do you know that there's 'intra-class struggle'? How does dialectics apply here?

Rahatupu
#17 Posted : Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:51:33 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
Wakanyugi wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Maybe so, may no.

Reminds of the joke about the three Jews and existentialism:

1. Marx - it is all about class struggle
2. Freud - no, it is all about struggle with self
3. Einstein - wrong you two, it is all relative

Your preference depends on perspective, context and background - and whether you preferred Toivo, or KM hooch in College.

@wakanyugi, sounds familiar....KU?
Rahatupu
#18 Posted : Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:55:27 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,982
Location: matano manne
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Revolution itself is the creation of utopian world.

A key presupposition of revolution is cyclicity. But how is cyclicity significant in politics and history? I think there are sufficient grounds to challenge this idea. For example, how was the idea of cyclicity in politics introduced and, would such a metaphor be apt?

The idea of revolution then is an abstract idea created to find solutions to a present that is dissatsfying. It's almost always an oversimplification that things in fact can go back to their beginings, and even, re-write history.

Class struggle, is another thing. Do you know that there's 'intra-class struggle'? How does dialectics apply here?




Marxist class struggle is not a end in itself. Rather is refined into actionable state capture armed revolutionary struggle by the likes of Lenin, Mao and Castro. The dialectical dimension in intra class struggle is just that a theory.
Wakanyugi
#19 Posted : Thursday, March 02, 2017 2:12:05 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
Rahatupu wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Maybe so, may no.

Reminds of the joke about the three Jews and existentialism:

1. Marx - it is all about class struggle
2. Freud - no, it is all about struggle with self
3. Einstein - wrong you two, it is all relative

Your preference depends on perspective, context and background - and whether you preferred Toivo, or KM hooch in College.

@wakanyugi, sounds familiar....KU?


Guilty

I hear KM has become gentrified now and Toivo became baptized punch. I fear the current generation will never know the genesis of true Marxist activism or the ideological/alcoholic fuel that drove it. So sad.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Wakanyugi
#20 Posted : Thursday, March 02, 2017 2:30:37 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,634
tycho wrote:
Rahatupu wrote:
Whichever way you look at it, revolution is an expression of resistance against the ideal or utopian world. The materials dialectics is the best expression of class struggle.


Revolution itself is the creation of utopian world.

A key presupposition of revolution is cyclicity. But how is cyclicity significant in politics and history? I think there are sufficient grounds to challenge this idea. For example, how was the idea of cyclicity in politics introduced and, would such a metaphor be apt?

The idea of revolution then is an abstract idea created to find solutions to a present that is dissatisfying.


This is a bit too broad and the point could in fact apply to the way society develops, driven by dissatisfaction with a present situation. Revolution is narrower drive as it is by dissatisfaction with a social system.

The cyclicity, harking back to an ideal past or hoping for a utopic future, is mostly imaginary and Marxism is a good case in point. Marx, Engeles, Lenin ably criticized a dissatisfying present but the solution they offered largely ignored the acquisitive nature of human beings. The classless heaven they spoke about has never been observed on Earth and existed only in their fecund imaginations.

In those terms, I believe Adam Smith was more of a revolutionary than Marx, even though he never cast himself as such.

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2025 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.