Week 2

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.