体育场和墓地的军需官:规范的起义主义和革命战略的理论化不足

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Socialist Studies Pub Date : 2016-03-01 DOI:10.18740/S4S301
J. Moufawad-Paul
{"title":"体育场和墓地的军需官:规范的起义主义和革命战略的理论化不足","authors":"J. Moufawad-Paul","doi":"10.18740/S4S301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article I examine the problematic of revolutionary strategy and how it is under-theorized at the centres of global capitalism, often confused with the theory of organization.  Arguing that the theory of insurrection is often and uncritically accepted as normative, I discuss the necessity of returning to a critical engagement with the theory of strategy in the context of a modern capitalist military.  By examining Karl Liebknecht's examination of militarism, the a priori acceptance of the theory of insurrection by contemporary theorists in both the communist and anarchist traditions (i.e. Jodi Dean and the Invisible Committee), and the counter-tradition of protracted people's war, I demonstrate that the theory of insurrection is philosophically deficient, unable to account for the problems produced by capitalist militarism and pacification.","PeriodicalId":29667,"journal":{"name":"Socialist Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"127-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quartermasters of Stadiums and Cemeteries: Normative Insurrectionism and the Under-theorization of Revolutionary Strategy\",\"authors\":\"J. Moufawad-Paul\",\"doi\":\"10.18740/S4S301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article I examine the problematic of revolutionary strategy and how it is under-theorized at the centres of global capitalism, often confused with the theory of organization.  Arguing that the theory of insurrection is often and uncritically accepted as normative, I discuss the necessity of returning to a critical engagement with the theory of strategy in the context of a modern capitalist military.  By examining Karl Liebknecht's examination of militarism, the a priori acceptance of the theory of insurrection by contemporary theorists in both the communist and anarchist traditions (i.e. Jodi Dean and the Invisible Committee), and the counter-tradition of protracted people's war, I demonstrate that the theory of insurrection is philosophically deficient, unable to account for the problems produced by capitalist militarism and pacification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Socialist Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"127-127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Socialist Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18740/S4S301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socialist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18740/S4S301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我考察了革命战略的问题,以及在全球资本主义的中心,它是如何被理论化的,常常与组织理论相混淆。认为起义理论经常被不加批判地接受为规范,我讨论了在现代资本主义军事背景下回归与战略理论批判性接触的必要性。通过考察卡尔·李卜克内西(Karl Liebknecht)对军国主义的考察、共产主义和无政府主义传统(如乔迪·迪恩(Jodi Dean)和隐形委员会(Invisible Committee))的当代理论家对起义理论的先验接受,以及长期人民战争的反传统,我证明了起义理论在哲学上是有缺陷的,无法解释资本主义军国主义和绥平所产生的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quartermasters of Stadiums and Cemeteries: Normative Insurrectionism and the Under-theorization of Revolutionary Strategy
In this article I examine the problematic of revolutionary strategy and how it is under-theorized at the centres of global capitalism, often confused with the theory of organization.  Arguing that the theory of insurrection is often and uncritically accepted as normative, I discuss the necessity of returning to a critical engagement with the theory of strategy in the context of a modern capitalist military.  By examining Karl Liebknecht's examination of militarism, the a priori acceptance of the theory of insurrection by contemporary theorists in both the communist and anarchist traditions (i.e. Jodi Dean and the Invisible Committee), and the counter-tradition of protracted people's war, I demonstrate that the theory of insurrection is philosophically deficient, unable to account for the problems produced by capitalist militarism and pacification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信