Now, the youth… I went to a few meetings and a funeral, and I saw a total of one — always the same one, a young fellow. You can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism — public space has been dismantled, the roads are a mess, there are few shops left, the people are on their own.
Of course, the level of development is better there, but I had this feeling of nothing being up to scratch. That has nothing to do with communism, but I think it does have to do with neo-liberalism, the purest form of it — which we do not have in the western European continent.
Fight club essays very useful
Commenting on this piece? The Guardian picture essay. Topics The Guardian picture essay. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All. Threads collapsed expanded unthreaded. Loading comments… Trouble loading? Most popular. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads.
You can change your ad preferences anytime. Fight club essays very useful. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this document? Why not share! Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No.
Olga Byrd Want to preview some of our plans? MargieSonya YangHewitt How long does it take to lose stomach fat? Net at DigitalEssay. Net I can advise you this service - DigitalEssay. No problem. Be the first to like this. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds. No notes for slide.
Fight club essays very useful 1. When looking at Fight Club, power, control and liberation are themes that cannot be ignored. I think that, how far I agree with the statement made would depend entirely upon which aspect of the film I was looking from.
It has developed a strong consumerist ideology. I would be inclined to say that it is in this respect that Fight Club is about liberation. It is about removing yourself from the ties put in place by society and the ideology that is imposed upon us. This Marxist idea that is strongly shown through this escape would suggest that the film is about liberation. However, the character of Tyler has very much control over Jack. This would lead me to agree with the statement that Fight Club is about power and control. This scene clearly shows the audience of how controlling and powerful Tyler is towards Jack.
He can convince to effectively drive himself to death. The party is structured along hierarchical lines that reflect the very society it professes to oppose.
Fight Club: Marx & Hegel in the Pitt
Despite its theoretical pretensions, it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with an apparatus and a cadre whose function it is to seize power, not dissolve power. Rooted in the prerevolutionary period, it assimilates all the forms, techniques and mentality of bureaucracy. Its membership is schooled in obedience and in the preconceptions of a rigid dogma and is taught to revere the leadership. The party's leadership, in turn, is schooled in habits born of command, authority, manipulation and egomania.
This situation is worsened when the party participates in parliamentary elections. In election campaigns, the vanguard party models itself completely on existing bourgeois forms and even acquires the paraphernalia of the electoral party. The situation assumes truly critical proportions when the party acquires large presses, costly headquarters and a large inventory of centrally controlled periodicals, and develops a paid "apparatus"—in short, a bureaucracy with vested material interests.
As the party expands, the distance between the leadership and the ranks invariably increases. Its leaders not only become "personages," they lose contact with the living situation below. The local groups, which know their own immediate situation better than any remote leader, are obliged to subordinate their insights to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct knowledge of local problems, responds sluggishly and prudently.
Although it stakes out a claim to the "larger view," to greater "theoretical competence," the competence of the leadership tends to diminish as one ascends the hierarchy of command. The more one approaches the level where the real decisions are made, the more conservative is the nature of the decision-making process, the more bureaucratic and extraneous are the factors which come into play, the more considerations of prestige and retrenchment supplant creativity, imagination, and a disinterested dedication to revolutionary goals.
The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralization. Although everyone marches in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns—as they do in all revolutions. The party is efficient in only one respect—in molding society in its own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful.
It recreates bureaucracy, centralization and the state. It fosters the bureaucracy, centralization and the state.
It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of "withering away," the state controlled by the "glorious party" preserves the very conditions which "necessitate" the existence of a state—and a party to "guard" it. On the other hand, this kind of party is extremely vulnerable in periods of repression. The bourgeoisie has only to grab its leadership to destroy virtually the entire movement. With its leaders in prison or in hiding, the party becomes paralyzed; the obedient membership has no one to obey and tends to flounder. Demoralization sets in rapidly.
The party decomposes not only because of the repressive atmosphere but also because of its poverty of inner resources. The foregoing account is not a series of hypothetical inferences, it is a composite sketch of all the mass Marxian parties of the past century—the Social Democrats, the Communists, and the Trotskyist party of Ceylon the only mass party of its kind. To claim that these parties failed to take their Marxian principles seriously merely conceals another question: why did this failure happen in the first place? The fact is, these parties were co-opted into bourgeois society because they were structured along bourgeois lines.
The germ of treachery existed in them from birth.
The Bolshevik Party was spared this fate between and for only one reason: it was an illegal organization during most of the years leading up to the revolution. The party was continually being shattered and reconstituted, with the result that until it took power it never really hardened into a fully centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical machine.
Moreover, it was riddled by factions; the intensely factional atmosphere persisted throughout into the civil war. Nevertheless, the Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely conservative, a trait that Lenin had to fight throughout —first in his efforts to reorient the Central Committee against the provisional government the famous conflict over the "April Theses" , later in driving the Central Committee toward insurrection in October.
- World Socialist Web Site.
- Re-reading Marx!
- descriptive essay about loneliness.
In both cases he threatened to resign from the Central Committee and bring his views to "the lower ranks of the party. In , factional disputes over the issue of the Brest-Litovsk treaty became so serious that the Bolsheviks nearly split into two warring communist parties. Oppositional Bolshevik groups like the Democratic Centralists and the Workers' Opposition waged bitter struggles within the party throughout and , not to speak of oppositional movements that developed within the Red Army over Trotsky's propensity for centralization.
The complete centralization of the Bolshevik Party—the achievement of "Leninist unity," as it was to be called later—did not occur until , when Lenin succeeded in persuading the Tenth Party Congress to ban factions. By this time, most of the White Guards had been crushed and the foreign interventionists had withdrawn their troops from Russia.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the Bolsheviks tended to centralize their party to the degree that they became isolated from the working class. This relationship has rarely been investigated in latter-day Leninist circles, although Lenin was honest enough to admit it. The story of the Russian Revolution is not merely the story of the Bolshevik Party and its supporters. Beneath the veneer of official events described by Soviet historians there was another, more basic, development—the spontaneous movement of the workers and revolutionary peasants, which later clashed sharply with the bureaucratic policies of the Bolsheviks.
With the overthrow of the czar in February , workers in virtually all the factories of Russia spontaneously established factory committees, staking out an increasing claim on industrial operations. In June an all-Russian conference of factory committees was held in Petrograd which called for the "organization of thorough control by labor over production and distribution.
Trotsky, who describes the factory committees as "the most direct and indubitable representation of the proletariat in the whole country," deals with them peripherally in his massive three-volume history of the revolution.
Related fight club marxism essays
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved