Intellectuals and Revolutionary Politics - Assignment Example

Intellectuals and Revolutionary Politics 1. What would George Sorel make of Ali Shariati’s slogan: “Every place is Karbala, every day is Ashoura? There are different opinions on George Sorel, varying from ‘one of the two sole original thinkers thrown up by socialism’ - of Benedetto Croce, through Mussolini’s acknowledgment – ‘What I am, I owe to Sorel’, and the statement of the French fascist, Ramon Fernandes, that Sorel ‘directly inspired the totalitarian regimes’, to Lenin’s dismissal of Sorel as ‘a muddle-headed mischief-maker’; though Sorel himself has apparently been fascinated by Lenin describing him as the greatest theorist of socialism since Marx and comparing his genius with that of Peter the Great (Talmon, J. L. 451). At the light of these evaluations, somehow solitary stands Talmon’s description of George Sorel like a restless and easily discouraged seeker, whose tentative enthusiasms and bitter disillusionments not only epitomised the development and transformation of his views, but also placed him among the nineteenth century’s great prophets of wrath, along with Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, and etc.(453). Even though telling the half of the story, this description is perhaps among the most comprehensive ones, shedding light on such a contradictory personality and intellectual path. Another part is told by Sorel’s own ideas expressed in his writings which to one degree or another reveal his preoccupation with themes like integration and disintegration, decadence, rebirth, and decline; as well as his deepest sentiments – the aggressive and overwhelming pessimism and his strong desire of deliverance. His notion of pessimism - as a notion of an advance toward deliverance, closely connected to the knowledge gained from experience of the obstacles resisting the satisfaction of human’s imagination and to the deep conviction of human beings’ natural weakness - perhaps most powerfully reveals the breadth and width of his meandering soul (Sorel, G. 192- 226) Sorel regards pain and suffering as instrumental in riveting human beings to life, and scorns those who promise easy solutions and rapid improvement, assuming that the natural tendency toward dissolution and decay is a universal law (Talmon, J. L. 453-454). Having embraced the theory of Marx by the early 1890s, George Sorel added some flesh to the confused blur of his ideas; the universal sinner and perpetrator of all the sufferings of the poor has been found, personified by the evils of capitalism. From that point on, the integral trade unionism, as a bearer of a new morality, became the new ‘self-sufficient kingdom of God’ (Talmon 456), whose destine is seen by Sorel ‘to enthrone a new civilization on the ruins of the decaying bourgeoisie. From here to hailing Mussolini as ‘a man no less extraordinary than Lenin’ (Talmon 451), Sorel has had a short way to go. Sorel’s roaming between Marx, trade unionism and fascism is easily explained, given his rejection of the very idea of any guidance, supervision or control, either from outside or from above; which is considered to have prepared him to endorse Mussolini’s famous slogan: ‘Every system is an error, every theory is a prison’ (Talmon 467). This slogan appears to fully match Sorel’s ever seeking (though most of the time on mistaken or strange grounds) spirituality. 2. Both Jean-Paul Sartre and Frantz Fanon long for revolution – Sartre to see his country, France, destroyed, Fanon to see former French colonies liberated. Which of the two seems to want to be destroyed along with the establishment he resists? Why the one and not the other? The preface to Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, written by Jean-Paul Sartre, delivers a shocking message to the reader, as it comes from a thinker whose outlook on the then world realities and his nature (or posture) of a politically engaged intellectual indicate an emphasis on the humanist values and condemnatory attitude towards exploitation and oppression in all existing forms. In fact, there are two main lines within the writing, which cause the shock, both as much contradictory in their essence as in relation to the author’s convictions as declared. The first is represented by the acceptance, quite as a matter of course, and even open exoneration of violence when the oppressed, colonized ‘natives’ are using it in order to liberate themselves from the shackles of the colonial power: ‘it is not their violence, it is ours, on the rebound, that grows and tears them apart’ (pr.10). Meanwhile, Fanon is straight and extremely logical; his message is clear and unidirectional – the old establishment represented by the colonists and the colonial institutions must be overthrown in order to make place for the new one; thus to cure the colonized of colonial neurosis by driving the colonist out by force (Sartre pr.13). In other words and in regard to the question above, according to Sartre, ‘he shows perfectly clearly that this irrepressible violence is neither a storm in a teacup nor the reemergence of savage instincts nor even a consequence of resentment; it is man reconstructing himself’ (pr.13). As for Sartre, here appears the second, even more shocking line in his writing – he doesn’t simply agree with Fanon that the colonized are in their divine right to use violence against their oppressors – ‘the fighter’s weapon is his humanity’ – as well as notes the fact that the terror has already left the African continent, being brought into the streets of the mother country by its own raving fanatics, but declares a willingness to get subjected to the consequences of centuries-old injustice, along with the whole developed world and its institutions. In this regard, Sartre is remarkably consistent and sends a message as that clear as Fanon’s above; he is ready to accept, though figuratively, to get plunged into the ‘native’ status, suffering the occupation of his country by the formerly colonized and starving to death. Then and only then, he believes, the colonialism along with the concomitant arrogance and senility, which possesses the nation, would inevitably meet its demise. Having rejected the notion of liberty, equality, fraternity, honor and country as empty chatter, concerning both Europe and North America, Sartre reaches the final point, suggesting that ‘the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation’ (Sartre pr.15). While the Old Testament principle, ‘tit for tat’, seems to a degree to be in accordance with Fanon’s view, Sartre adds some bewildering, mystic and sacrificial shade of its meaning, saying that the violence could heal up violence, in reference to Homer – ‘violence, like Achilles’ spear, can heal the wounds it has inflicted’ (Sartre, pr.20). 3. Can Iran Change? Since the Constitution of 1905-6, Iranian national identity has been split between popular sovereignty of nationalism and the ulema’s claims to authority as a vanguard in defense of the nation’s Islamic character. Akbar Ganji proposes that Iran will only thrive once it recognizes that “all men are prone to error.” What do you think of the prospects in Iran for this kind of reform? Since the Islamic Revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran is ruled via a prima facie odd and complex system: the inner circle which consists of the clerical establishment under the Supreme leader in the person of Ayatollah Khamenei after Khomeini’s death; and an outer circle represented by almost Western-style democratic institutions like the Iranian parliament – the Majlis, the government, ministers, etc. under the President of the Islamic Republic – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since 2005. There is no doubt who reigns supreme in Tehran – Khamenei is paramount religious and political authority for life, and the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces (Anderson, Jon Lee 4) - while the outer circle is intended to give pseudo-democratic outlook of the regime as well as to serve a purpose of a safety fuse when it comes to the crunch – as observed several times over the years, with most notable example the protests that followed the 2009 presidential elections. Thus the iron core of the regime – the clerical establishment – is protected from any negative reaction due to economic or social misfortunes. There is a third power whose role is an object of numerous speculations but whose real influence is hidden in the shadows – the Revolutionary Guards. However, this triumvirate of forces is apparently welded together by the intention to keep the things as they are since the Shah was overthrown. Numerous analyses of the events after Ahmadinejad’s second election have expressed a timid hope for a change of the status quo – varying in the degree of optimism and drawing analogies between that situation and the dethronement of the Shah, while eminent dissidents like Akbar Ganji are moderately optimistic about the outcome of their efforts in changing the system (Wright, R. 3). Three basic considerations should be taken into account, however, when such a scenario is being discussed. First, and most important is the one expressed by Mr. Ganji himself – considering the political regime of a society as a dress cut to fit the build of its people, it would be impossible to get a tyrannical political system changed if the people think it will answer their needs ( Ganji, A.14). What the present Iranian opposition lacks is the leader who would dare to strike at the very heart of the system – its iron core represented by the clerical establishment, yet there are people like Mr. Ganji; moreover, he could be considered a white crow, rather than expressing the voice of a considerable majority. The second is the simple fact that the current situation has little to do with the one when the Shah was overthrown – then people were united under the religion banner which, regretfully, is much more powerful driving force than the democracy desire at these latitudes; and which was dexterously used by Ayatollah Khomeini. And last but not least is the consideration connected with the ubiquitous Revolutionary Guards and their steadily increasing role in the Iranian economic and political modus operandi. However, it is not the mission impossible, since the world have seen many, even much more spectacular collapses of much more powerful and deemed unshakable regimes; perhaps it’s just matter of time. References {1}Anderson, John Lee. “Can Iran Change?” The New Yorker, April 13, 2009. 4 {2} Ganji, Akbar. Second letter to the free people of the world, 2005. 14 {3}Sartre, Jean Paul. Preface to Fanon, Franz. The Wretched of the Earth (trans. by R. Philcox) New York, Grove Press, 2005. {4} Sorel, George. "From Reflections on Violence" in Stanley, John (ed.) From George Sorel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. 192- 226 {5} Talmon, J.L, Part VIII: "From George Sorel to Benito Mussolini" in Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution. Brunswick, N.J.; Transaction, 1991. 451, 453-454, 456, 467 {6}Wright, Robin, Free Thinker: Iranian Dissident Akbar Ganji, at Liberty to Speak His Mind, at Least Until He Goes Back Home. The Washington Post, Monday, August 14, 2006. Read More