Rhetoric Marx the Spot (Post #2)

Marxist theory has many holes often resulting in undeniable contradictions. Thusly, the Marxist persuasion has taken many twists and turns, branching off in different directions and developing more like an indeterminate religion than a political theory. In Anue’s article, he mentions the common division of study: scientific and critical. Does a Marxist government occur naturally, following in the wake of a capitalist system that will inevitably crumble, or is it something that must be gained through a revolutionary proletariat, or are they interrelated? Aune asserts that Marxism fills the gap between structure and struggle. Even the rigid capitalist structure must be overthrown by an equally powerful movement with its own select governing body.

There are four way in which Aune describes Marxism as filling in the gap between structure and struggle. The first approach looks at Leninism. He felt that the working class alone can not organize a revolution. There needs to be an organizing party, but as history has show, this group of people lose touch with the workers they represent. Then there is the idea that the revolution will come from not only the working class, but all marginalized people. There will be a direct or voluntary democracy and the economy will be handled by naturally accruing groups. Still, this could result in worse conditions that the capitalist system. There is no telling what will arise.

The last two divisions touch on the rhetorical problems of Marxism. How will these views be instilled on the people? One deals with the Frankfurt School, which I agree with whole heartedly. I like how media is referred to as the “consciousness industry” resulting in “a repressive desublimation of aggressive and erotic instincts” (543). Plus, I think it is valid to say that the only legitimate forms of communication are philosophy and high art. Looking at the United States, media certainly has a greater impact on the group mind, while philosophy and art are under attack. However, I see their views as idealistic and thought rhetorical language should ultimately be avoided, it is necessary to keep their main propositions intact.

Though I am confused on the last school of Marxism, it only points out the problems of mass communication and its attempts to make people feel like they are part of the system by buying commodities. It never gives a clear path in establishing a Marxists system or how it should work.

Aune goes on to discuss Marxism as in rhetoric and criticism today. With rhetoric moving from the hands of the elite to a broader community, a new rhetorical discourse had to be devised. “It had to be replaced by a new standard of discourse, one more tied to print and to the initially egalitarian drive of capitalism to find new markets” (547). I find it ironic that “egalitarian” and “capitalism” are used in the same sentence, but it’s true nevertheless. It is the result of our poststructuralist society where everything is rhetoric, where everything thing subjective. In my opinion, freedom from the capitalist machine and the push for a redistribution of wealth cannot survive unless we are grounded in some form of objectivity. Even a Marxist Derrida would say that in order to make a statement, we would have to stop the chain of signifiers at some point.