Sign in with Facebook
Historical Dictionary of Marxism Quotes
Historical Dictionary of Marxism
by
David Walker1 rating, 3.00 average rating, 0 reviews
Historical Dictionary of Marxism Quotes
Showing 1-3 of 3
“SANDINISTAS. The Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente
Sandinista de Liberación Nacional—FSLN), more commonly known
as Sandinistas, ruled Nicaragua from 1979 until 1990, attempting to transform the country along Marxist-influenced lines. The group formed in the early 1960s, and spent the first two decades of its existence engaged in a guerrilla campaign against the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza, receiving backing from Cuba which remained a close ally when the Sandinistas took office. With popular revulsion towards Somoza rising, in 1978 the Sandinistas encouraged the
Nicaraguan people to rise up against his regime. After a brief but bloody battle, in July 1979 the dictator was forced into exile, and the Sandinistas emerged victorious. With the country in a state of morass, they quickly convened a multi-interest five-person Junta of National
Reconstruction to implement sweeping changes. The junta included rigid Marxist and long-serving Sandinista Daniel Ortega, and under his influence Somoza’s vast array of property and land was confiscated and brought under public ownership. Additionally, mining,
banking and a limited number of private enterprises were nationalized, sugar distribution was taken into state hands, and vast areas of rural land were expropriated and distributed among the peasantry as collective farms. There was also a highly successful literacy campaign, and the creation of neighborhood groups to place regional governance in the hands of workers.
Inevitably, these socialist undertakings got tangled up in the Cold War period United States, and in 1981 President Ronald Reagan began funding oppositional “Contra” groups which for the entire decade waged an economic and military guerrilla campaign against the Sandinista government. Despite this and in contrast to other communist states, the government fulfilled its commitment to political plurality, prompting the growth of opposition groups and parties
banned under the previous administration. In keeping with this, an internationally recognized general election was held in 1984, returning Ortega as president and giving the Sandinistas 61 of 90 parliamentary seats. Yet, in the election of 1990, the now peaceful Contra’s National
Opposition Union emerged victorious, and Ortega’s Sandinistas were relegated to the position of the second party in Nicaraguan politics, a status they retain today.
The Marxism of the Sandinistas offered an alternative to the Marx-
ism–Leninism of the Soviet Bloc and elsewhere. This emanated from
the fact that the group attempted to blend a Christian perspective on
theories of liberation with a fervent devotion to both democracy and
the Marxian concepts of dialectical materialism, worker rule and
proletariat-led revolution. The result was an arguably fairly success-
ful form of socialism cut short by regional factors.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
Sandinista de Liberación Nacional—FSLN), more commonly known
as Sandinistas, ruled Nicaragua from 1979 until 1990, attempting to transform the country along Marxist-influenced lines. The group formed in the early 1960s, and spent the first two decades of its existence engaged in a guerrilla campaign against the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza, receiving backing from Cuba which remained a close ally when the Sandinistas took office. With popular revulsion towards Somoza rising, in 1978 the Sandinistas encouraged the
Nicaraguan people to rise up against his regime. After a brief but bloody battle, in July 1979 the dictator was forced into exile, and the Sandinistas emerged victorious. With the country in a state of morass, they quickly convened a multi-interest five-person Junta of National
Reconstruction to implement sweeping changes. The junta included rigid Marxist and long-serving Sandinista Daniel Ortega, and under his influence Somoza’s vast array of property and land was confiscated and brought under public ownership. Additionally, mining,
banking and a limited number of private enterprises were nationalized, sugar distribution was taken into state hands, and vast areas of rural land were expropriated and distributed among the peasantry as collective farms. There was also a highly successful literacy campaign, and the creation of neighborhood groups to place regional governance in the hands of workers.
Inevitably, these socialist undertakings got tangled up in the Cold War period United States, and in 1981 President Ronald Reagan began funding oppositional “Contra” groups which for the entire decade waged an economic and military guerrilla campaign against the Sandinista government. Despite this and in contrast to other communist states, the government fulfilled its commitment to political plurality, prompting the growth of opposition groups and parties
banned under the previous administration. In keeping with this, an internationally recognized general election was held in 1984, returning Ortega as president and giving the Sandinistas 61 of 90 parliamentary seats. Yet, in the election of 1990, the now peaceful Contra’s National
Opposition Union emerged victorious, and Ortega’s Sandinistas were relegated to the position of the second party in Nicaraguan politics, a status they retain today.
The Marxism of the Sandinistas offered an alternative to the Marx-
ism–Leninism of the Soviet Bloc and elsewhere. This emanated from
the fact that the group attempted to blend a Christian perspective on
theories of liberation with a fervent devotion to both democracy and
the Marxian concepts of dialectical materialism, worker rule and
proletariat-led revolution. The result was an arguably fairly success-
ful form of socialism cut short by regional factors.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
“PROLETARIAT.
This is the term used by Karl Marx to refer to the working class, and it is defined as the class within capitalism that does not own the means of production, the class that owns nothing other
than its labor power. The proletariat is locked in struggle with the bourgeoisie which owns and controls the means of production, and by extension controls the state. Gradually developing in size, organization, and class consciousness the proletariat, Marx believes, will bring
about revolutionary change, overthrowing capitalism and instituting
communism after a transitional phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the advent of communism and the abolition of private
property the proletariat along with all other classes will disappear.
There are a number of significant problems with Marx’s notion of the proletariat. First, Marx nowhere develops a theory of class and
fails to offer more than a terse definition of the proletariat. This
means that it is very difficult to determine exactly who falls into the
category of proletarian. For example, managers, professionals, intellectuals and housewives/husbands are all propertyless, but it is not
clear if they should be included in the proletariat since they do not
create value and in the case of managers and professionals in particular they may earn vastly more than and see themselves very differently from a more typical member of the proletariat such as a factory
worker. Also, there is the problem of the lack of a revolutionary consciousness emerging in the proletariat, which has led to some Marxists, such as Vladimir Ilich Lenin, arguing for a vanguard party to import revolutionary consciousness into the proletariat, and others, for example the members of the Frankfurt School, taking a more
pessimistic view of the possibility of the proletariat being an agent of
revolution at all.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
This is the term used by Karl Marx to refer to the working class, and it is defined as the class within capitalism that does not own the means of production, the class that owns nothing other
than its labor power. The proletariat is locked in struggle with the bourgeoisie which owns and controls the means of production, and by extension controls the state. Gradually developing in size, organization, and class consciousness the proletariat, Marx believes, will bring
about revolutionary change, overthrowing capitalism and instituting
communism after a transitional phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the advent of communism and the abolition of private
property the proletariat along with all other classes will disappear.
There are a number of significant problems with Marx’s notion of the proletariat. First, Marx nowhere develops a theory of class and
fails to offer more than a terse definition of the proletariat. This
means that it is very difficult to determine exactly who falls into the
category of proletarian. For example, managers, professionals, intellectuals and housewives/husbands are all propertyless, but it is not
clear if they should be included in the proletariat since they do not
create value and in the case of managers and professionals in particular they may earn vastly more than and see themselves very differently from a more typical member of the proletariat such as a factory
worker. Also, there is the problem of the lack of a revolutionary consciousness emerging in the proletariat, which has led to some Marxists, such as Vladimir Ilich Lenin, arguing for a vanguard party to import revolutionary consciousness into the proletariat, and others, for example the members of the Frankfurt School, taking a more
pessimistic view of the possibility of the proletariat being an agent of
revolution at all.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
“RULING CLASS. For Marxists the ruling class is the economically dominant class, and the economically dominant class is the class that owns and controls the means of production. With economic power
comes political power, and Karl Marx saw the ruling class as controlling the state. Furthermore, the ruling class is intellectually dominant, which Marx expressed as, “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas.” The notion of a ruling class can obscure
or oversimplify complexities of class rule. For example, as Marx himself notes in discussing various actual historical examples, the ruling class may be split into different sections, or may be difficult to determine, and the Soviet Union raised the question of whether or not its leadership constituted a new ruling class not defined in terms of its property ownership. The state itself may develop its own autonomy and interests separate from those of the dominant economic
class, a complicating factor explored by Nico Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband. The issue of the ruling class’s ideas being the ruling ideas is a further issue of debate within Marxism, with Antonio Gramsci’s
notion of hegemony, and the Frankfurt School’s focus on ideology raising the question of the extent to which ideology is instrumental in
maintaining class rule.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
comes political power, and Karl Marx saw the ruling class as controlling the state. Furthermore, the ruling class is intellectually dominant, which Marx expressed as, “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas.” The notion of a ruling class can obscure
or oversimplify complexities of class rule. For example, as Marx himself notes in discussing various actual historical examples, the ruling class may be split into different sections, or may be difficult to determine, and the Soviet Union raised the question of whether or not its leadership constituted a new ruling class not defined in terms of its property ownership. The state itself may develop its own autonomy and interests separate from those of the dominant economic
class, a complicating factor explored by Nico Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband. The issue of the ruling class’s ideas being the ruling ideas is a further issue of debate within Marxism, with Antonio Gramsci’s
notion of hegemony, and the Frankfurt School’s focus on ideology raising the question of the extent to which ideology is instrumental in
maintaining class rule.”
― Historical Dictionary of Marxism
