This week we watched Viva Zapata! – a fictionalized film the depicts the life of Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican revolutionary. In the start, Zapata is a simple peasant, coming to President Diaz with his fellow countrymen to complain about having their land stolen. Diaz tells them the courts will handle the matter, but Zapata shows distrust in the system. He eventually helps Madero come into power, overthrowing Diaz in hopes that the land that was taken would return to him and his people. However, while Zapata is rewarded with land, he is displeased because his people’s land isn’t given back to them. Eventually, Zapata comes into power, and a very similar scene occurs again. Countrymen come to complain of land stolen by Zapata’s brother, and Zapata tells them he will deal with it when he has time. Just like Zapata, a man comes forth and stands up to Zapata, and Zapata circles his name just as Diaz circled Zapata’s. Zapata realizes how everything has come full circle and decides to try and change it. Eventually he is killed, becomes a symbol of freedom. He says that things change slowly, through people, not by a leader. If the people are strong together, they don’t need a strong man to lead them. Which is just like we have talked about in our discussions, that change has to come from below the current power.

What is interesting is yet again we see that while people start revolutions with good intentions, they can become corrupted once they themselves hold the power -Zapata’s brother is an example of this, taking what he wants regardless of law because “he is a general and he fought for it.” Some people fight only for themselves, instead of the ideals that they thought they were fighting for. Another point is that some people are in revolutions only for destruction, or to cause chaos. I might be getting this name wrong, (please correct me) but the representative of Madero who eventually works under Zapata and then betrays him (Fernando??) is this person who just wants destruction. He switched sides to whoever would win the fight, so that he could keep fighting.

A few quotes really stuck with me, for different reasons. Zapata says that “a monkey in silk is still a monkey.” Even if someone gains power, it doesn’t mean they have become a good person. While we might root for Zapata, there is at least one thing about him that I can’t get over -his treatment and thoughts on women. While it is made out that he is a romantic, and Josefa swoons over him, he objectifies her. He says that “a man is fire, a women is his fuel” and that “a woman born beautiful is born married.” Both of these sayings reduce women to objects. In his eyes a woman is only there to support a man, and beauty is the main quality of a woman. In the movie, the women seem to like these lines a lot. However, he did not take her by force, as his brother suggested.

This week we were asked to watch Viva Zapata! an American film directed by Elia Kazan depicting a fictionalized account of Emilliano Zapata’s resistance in the Mexican revolution. His key role in the revolution is certainly recognized and narrative works well to shed light on the underdog and community driven nature of his fight. One thing that seems strange in the movie was the character played by Joseph Wiseman, Fernando Aguirre. His purely ideological motives seem to have been dropped into the story out of nowhere. So, I looked it up and apparently he was. Kazan was under pressure from his studio to not make a radical film that would alert the House Committee on Un-American Activities (created to investigate American citizens with communist ties). Kazan was eventually called before HUAC where he argued that the film was anti-communist and controversially outed some of his previous colleges.

Zapata’s struggle in the real world is one that existed long before the revolution (Cajemé, Juarez, Teresita…) and continues long after (Wixáritari automous communities, Zapatistas, Nahua resistance…). However, Zapata played an important role in militarizing the fight and cementing it in the wider public conciseness with his success. In 1911 he and his army were able to take the town of Cuautla after six days of battle, which took place alongside the Battle of Ciudad Juarez fought by other revolutionaries in the north. This led to the end of Porfirio Diaz’s dictatorship and the institution of Francisco Madero as the new leader. However, this was just the beginning for Zapata’s struggle as Madero who failed to act on land reform was eventually overthrown and replaced by several new leaders throughout the next 10 years. Zapata continued his resistance against those in power until his assassination in 1919.

His movement was one of the indigenous/campesino people and was deeply rooted in the struggle for land. In the Plan de Ayala, Zapata’s main concern after overthrowing Madero was to restore the land to the people. He states that upon the successful revolution, “the pueblos or citizens who have the titles corresponding to those properties will immediately enter into possession of that real estate of which they have been despoiled by the bad faith of our oppressors, maintaining at any cost with arms in hand the mentioned possession.” I believe that this focus is part of what makes his fight different (and arguably more successful) than other revolutionary struggles. Zapata it is not seeking to create a new social structure, he is fighting off dictatorship and capitalism to restore autonomy in indigenous/campesino communities. By centering land he is acknowledging its inherent connection to freedom.

As we spoke about yesterday, Jefferson describes  violence as necessary to a healthy republic. He argues that for a country born of violence it is only reasonable to expect “rebellions.” It seems that he is advocating for violence as a way to make your voice heard and clearly sees it as a healthy sign in the case of the situation in Massachusetts. I have a feeling he would be much less enthused by a rebellion that actually challenged his position or was by any group that was not white. For example, he dealt with Indigenous rebellion by instructing his War Department, “should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with “the hatchet”. He continued, “And…if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi.” Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, “in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them” [1]This kind of double standard obviously only allows for representation for one group, the group in power.

I think you can still see this kind of attitude today as the State often takes the same stance (albeit permitting less violence but still often acknowledging as protest as a part of democracy) which is still producing the same results. Inquiries, petitions and “peaceful” protests are permitted and often met with small institutional changes (COP 21, TRC). However whenever the system is challenged in a fundamental way the status quo is defended with violent force (Black Lives Matter, Oka, Ts’peten).

This is why I would agree with our other reading, the Communist Manifesto’s contentions that the revolution must be a profound societal change change initiated by those who are not in power. Marx and Engels make it clear; other political movements that are from/permit the bourgeoisie are inadequate and will uphold class-based inequality. Their comprehensive critique of capitalism also demonstrates how it can is used structurally to dominate and maintain oppression. For these reasons, I think their work is (and does) prove key in informing contemporary revolutionary movements. However, as others have noted, I believe some of their concepts can be expanded to address the “inter-sectional” modes of oppression that are recognized today. For example, Glen Coulthard works to evolve Marx’s concept of “modes of production.” He argues that by expanding the definition to one, “that encompasses not only the forces and relations of production but the modes of thought and behavior that constitute a social totality.” [2] Marx’s work is useful in his communities’ current struggle.

[1] Stannard, David E. 1993. American holocaust: The conquest of the new world. New York: Oxford University Press.

[2] Epstein, Andrew Bard. “Jacobin The Colonialism of the Present.” Jacobinmag. Jacobin, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

I was extremely excited to see the Communist Manifesto as part of this weeks reading. The Manifesto is in many ways Marx and Engels’ introduction to revolution in a capitalist society, the likes of which had never been seen before. This text is perhaps the most influential book in modern history, not because it fully outlines how, when and where to achieve revolution, but rather because of this books ability to serve as a symbol. This manifesto has inspired millions of individuals and has been the ideological backbone for many revolutions. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is the second best selling book of all time, behind the Bible. This fact alone should serve as a testament to how powerful this pamphlet really is. For me, this is the first piece of communist literature that I ever read. I believe I began reading it for the first time when I was 14 and despite not grasping all the key concepts (which to be honest, I still don’t grasp all of what Marx is saying) it served as definitive evidence for me that communism is not only inevitable, but also necessary for the evolution of human society. Marx’s outlining of the class distinctions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are central to his theme that it is class, which dictates the function of society. I firmly believe in this principle and Marx’s interpretation, as when we analyze society through a dialectical-materialist perspective it is evident that class structure and antagonisms are necessary for exploitation to exist. Marx cleverly points out how capitalism is dependent upon the suppression of the working class, on the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie through state forces. He explains how the power structures of the state cannot be broken and reformed through “bourgeoisie democracy” but must be taken by force. He and Engels explain the necessity for the workers to rise up and seize the means of production for themselves and why should they not? They are the labour power which contribute to the production of commodities and thus capital. The capitalist serves no function, as he performs no labour. Instead the capitalist only serves as a leech in which he extracts monetary value from the workers. The surplus value generated by the labour of the workers goes to this capitalist and thus exploitation occurs readily and rampantly throughout a capitalist system. The capitalist only puts forward capital to generate a commodity but this act in itself should not be seen as justification for the capitalist making profit. How did this capitalist generate the startup capital in the first place? Did they work for this capital (which is extremely rare) or was the capital taken by force then handed down through a single family throughout history (the latter being extremely common for these large corporations). We must remember that it is the people, the working class citizens, who hold all power in society, and the moment that we collectively realize that is the moment when the very foundations of our society will shake and crumble. In today’s troubling times we must remember the canonical words of the Manifesto, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

It should also be noted that we read Thomas Jefferson’s The “Tree of Liberty” Letter and Letter to James Madison, as well as Maximillien Robespierre’s “Justification of the Use of Terror”. These texts were very influential and important but with the limited time and word count I had (which I have already exceeded) I felt my opinions were best showcased while talking about the Communist Manifesto, the text I am most passionate about.

I find the language of this weeks readings particularly difficult (& I’ve never taken a history class before) so it’s possible I’ve interpreted them with comical inaccuracy. Sorry in advance/I’m hoping to learn more from other people’s blogs.

I tend to think of revolution and protest as directly opposing something, be it a system of government on the whole or something more specific, like a particular policy. Alternatively, Jefferson’ letters and the excerpts from Robespierre’s speech seem to posit revolution as something that works in conjunction with government rather than against it. Jefferson writes, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them.” This seems to suggest that any act of rebellion, regardless of its discernible impact, is a natural condition of government and in fact functions to demonstrate to those in power where they may need to change something. Jefferson goes on to suggest that acts of rebellion should be mildly punishable, if at all because they are “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” This made me think of the human body and how it’s constantly regenerating. For Jefferson and Robespierre rebellion is a natural act of regeneration that has to occur as long as government wants to remain current and effective, like shedding skin or growing nails.

Robespierre says, “the characteristic of popular government is confidence in the people and severity towards itself.” Perhaps a government that looks at rebellion as a learning experience and is hypercritical of itself would be popular. I couldn’t tell you since I’ve never seen evidence of a government that thought that way. Unsurprisingly, I think that is a very unrealistic way of describing government. As such, rebellion in the way that Jefferson and Robespierre appeared to be speaking about it, doesn’t exactly make sense to me. Their discussions of rebellion and its function reminded me of a child who loses control of a situation and tries to appears as if they have not by lying. Positing rebellion as a natural and constructive facet of government reduces the threat of a rebellion.

The first chapter of the Communist Manifesto details a type of rebellion I am much more familiar with–one that is both adversarial and violent. Of the proletariat it is stated that: “their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.”

The Communist Manifesto’s extensive discussion of class inequities (& exclusion of other potential inequities) could be viewed as narrow-minded or as evidence that class inequities really are more important than others. One way that I’ve enjoyed thinking of it is: with fewer financial concerns we would likely have more time and energy to spend thinking of and discussing our other shared difficulties. For instance, I might keep a job at which I feel undervalued and objectified because of financial concerns. I might complete a degree in a faculty I don’t care about because it offers me more job security. Relieved of the pressure to be an active and productive presence in the capitalist workforce I think I would be even better at caring for and considering the feelings and perspectives of those around me. I am inflexible when I’m exhausted.

A leader in the basic-income movement, Enno Schmidt, claims the movement would “help unleash creativity and entrepreneurialism: Switzerland’s workers would feel empowered to work the way they wanted to, rather than the way they had to just to get by. He even went so far as to compare it to a civil rights movement, like women’s suffrage or ending slavery.” I think this is a relevant movement and a potentially viable option when discussing future changes in relation to the values that are outlined in this manifesto.

I’ve linked the article below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?_r=1