Frantz Fanon’s Justification Of Violence And Marx’s Theory

Introduction

When it comes to the issue of violence, most people avoid it as much as possible as it has devastating outcomes for both parties. However, Frantz Fanon is one controversial philosopher who has tried to justify violence, especially when it comes to political violence in the case of struggle for independence. Fanon presents compelling argument that for the colonized to live a valuable life free from the shackles of the colonizers they need to rise up against the colonizers hence violence in justified in such a situation. However, there are several freedom fighters like Gandhi who were strongly against colonialism and they came up with the idea of active non-violence where they argued that a solution between the protagonists can be achieved without having to take arms against one another. While there are some who believe that endorsement of active violence by Fanon in the event of struggle for rights and freedom, there are others who are against the philosophy indicating there are several ways to achieve this freedom without having taking arms against each other.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss the Fanon justification of political violence and reviewing using Marx’s philosophy of human nature, the paper will start by providing an overview of Frank Fanon philosophy and the reason he gives to justify his position. Most commentators have tried to understand Fanon’s intellectual source for this justification of violence from other philosophers like Karl Marx but still there is little information from these sources justifying this violence. The paper will mainly focus on the Karl Marx’s theory of human nature to identify any information that is either supporting or rejecting Fanon’s philosophy. Marx’s theory will be discussed in details and the facts will be used to analyze Fanon’s reasons for justifying political violence. Although, Fanon’s philosophy dwells much on the colonial aspect of violence, this philosophy continue to be used even the post colonialism.

Political Violence

Political violence is a common phenomenon in the society both in the past and in the current world. Political violence is defined as violence usually perpetrated by political actors and it can be one state and another, and between non-state actors. There is also another side of the argument that indicates that this which indicates that this kind of violence is sometimes out of state control but still it is politically motivated. This kind of violence is most of the times as a result of political contention or collective struggle such as fighting against an oppressive regime. This political violence can be in form of revolutions which have occurred several times in different corners of the world, civil wars like the popular US Civil War of 1861and even strikes and riots usually happening in the labor industry. Although war between states is also included by some literature as part of political violence, science scholars usually do not include crime and warfare as part of political violence.

The explanation of political violence remains vague but some scholars have given three main reasons which lead to this type of violence. One of the explanations is as a result of institutional influence where the state economy or social systems contribute to political violence. A good example of this kind of violence is the Occupy the Wall Street which started as a peaceful protest but along the way turned violent causing loss of lives. This violence was perpetrated by economic institution where the Americans were protesting against accumulation of wealth among few people while majority of the population are languishing in poverty. The second explanation given is ideation one which is caused as a result of difference in ideology and it can either be political or religious and a good example can be the issue of terrorism perpetrated by religious extremist where they see people of other religions as non-believers who deserve to be killed. Lastly, an individual explanation is also given and it is mainly about individual reasons that motivate a person to participate in political violence and it can be as a result of rational or psychological factors.

The twentieth century is considered to have had more political violence than any other in history. It is during this era that there were two World Wars that left millions of people dead, revolutions that occurred in different countries, colonial conquests and anti-colonial resistance that happened mostly in African and Asian countries as well as counter revolution struggles. Due to the high numbers and recurrence of political violence, the events have led to the several studies trying to explain sensibility of political violence. While some are always against this type of violence, historians have labelled political violence as midwife of history which means some of the violence was justified as a means for making political progress. Although political violence in the past was considered horrifying, nowadays it has become increasingly celebrated as both civilians celebrate the death of others who are considered enemies in this kind of violence. According to historians and scholars, what is horrifying today is not violence itself but it is that violence that does not lead to political progress. In other words, as long as there is a belief that taking arms against ona another will lead to a certain achievement, then this violence is considered necessary. This argument seems to be adopted from Frantz Fanon’s philosophy which argues that there has to be violence between protagonists and it is justified as long as the groups are fighting against oppression.

Frantz Fanon Bibliography

Frantz Fanon is considered a modern day philosopher who was born in Forte-de-France which is the capital of French colony Martinique. In 1943, after completing his education, he accepted a call from General de Gaulle where several young people were being called to save France. After the end of Second World War, Fanon went back to France to receive his higher education where he stayed until 1952 before heading to Algeria to work as a psychiatrist in 1953. On arriving in Algeria, he became fascinated by struggle for independence where he became a strong supporter of the cause but he was later expelled in 1957 and returned to France. Thereafter, Fanon, became a professional revolutionist and it is this time that he came with his philosophy for justifying political violence as a justified means of achieving political progress. His argument about violence is believed to have been based on four elements. First, Fanon believed in Black consciousness and his resistance against racist colonialism which was happening all over the world especially in the African countries. Secondly, he believed in and concerned about creation of new humanism which would only be achieved through revolution hence justifying the need for active violence. Thirdly, the idea of existentialist and Marxist influences where protagonist had to raise arms against one another to fight for their existence is also eminent in his ideology. Fourthly, the idea of peasantry and lumpen-proletariats as the new agents of violence in the third World War is also part of his arguments. Lastly, the glorification of violence where he argued is a justified means of achieving political change and fighting against oppression.

Frantz Fanon Philosophy of Violence

First it is crucial to look at the meaning of violence from Fanon’s perspective to ensure that it is clear that he understanding of violence is the same as it is in the today’s description. Notably, there was not at any single point did Fanon define violence but he used the term several times in his theory. For instance, in his theory, Fanon alludes that colonial regimes were created and maintained through violence where he argues that colonial settlers in a great way applied cannons and bayonets to exploit the natives and to ensure that they exerted their power. The mention of cannons and bayonets is an indicator that he talked about colonialists inflicting physical injuries on the natives through these weapons. Fanon did not only understand violence in terms of physical injury only as he also mentions the use of force where he argues that the agents of government in the colonies spoke the language of pure force. The mention of force was regular in Fanon’s theory as he used violence and force interchangeably which means he understood well what he was justifying. One example is where he argues that the existence of hecatombs is a clear sign that the force is the only way that can be used to achieve the balance between the oppressors and the oppressed. He continues to argue that liberation from the institution of colonialism can only be achieved through violence. From these examples, it is clear that force and physical injuries were part of Fanon’s understanding of violence.

Physical injuries and force are not the only common terms in Fanon’s description of violence as it extended to radicalism, coercion and militarism. Fanon describes representatives of colonial governments in the UN General Assembly as people who were aggressive and violent and that they carried theme to the extremes. This is a clear description of radicalism where the individuals are considered extremists, violent and aggressive in achieving the objectives or pursuing their agenda. From overview of Fanon’s meaning of violence, it is clear that he understood well although his definition can be somehow described as ambiguous. However, it is clear that according to Fanon’s violence is anything that was not non-violent and involved use of force and inflicting injuries and those who perpetrated it were the oppressor who were radicals and they took things to the extreme. In his theory, he describes violence as anything that encompasses political pressure which include aggression, militancy and coercion, physical and psychological injuries and power as well as the use of force.

Fanon’s Importance of Violence

Fanon is remembered for his support of violence as he argued it is a justifiable means to achieve historical progress and he justified his argument by giving various importance of violence. First, Fanon argues that the only way a man can create himself is through violence where revolutionary violence frees a man and creates a new man. Based on this argument, Fanon tries to justify anti-colonial violence where he argues that the only way for natives of colonialism is through use of force to overthrow colonial powers is by the colonized taking arms against the colonial powers. From this perspective it is clear that the philosophy incites the aggrieved in politics to use violence against those who are oppressing them as a means of achieving what they want and ascertaining them as new human beings. This importance of violence indicates that Fanon believed that the oppressed should use armed violence as a way of freeing themselves from the inferiority complex and gaining self-worth and it is also a justified means of gaining their self-respect and restoring their lost glory. In other words, an oppressed or colonized only finds his himself through violence.

The second importance is that it creates humanism and this is based on his psychiatrist profession where he argues that violence gives the man as sense of achievement and regaining their worth as human beings. This importance is highly connected to the first importance discussed above where he argues that violence helps people free themselves from humiliation. This importance is not for the purpose of whole humanity as it is meant for individual cleansing hence it belongs to the individualism explanation of political violence. This justification of violence argues that the colonizers or the oppressed can only purify themselves from the shackles of the oppressors through violence where they achieve self-pride and courage when they defeat their enemies. Notably, Fanon justify his importance of violence as it plays purificatory in individual human beings.

The third justification of violence goes beyond the purificatory and liberations of conscience as it is a unifying element among the natives of colonialism or in the current politics, the oppressed. In this argument he argued that the social and political violence of the colonial powers need to seize to exist for new ones to be created. For the oppressed to have the power to achieve this their goal they ought to come together as a group and put aside their difference to fight the oppressors who are seen as a common enemy. In other words, solidarity becomes a necessity for the natives or the oppressed and the only way to achieve this solidarity is through violence which will bide people together and create what he calls collective individual. The moment people recognize each other through violence they become unified and the fight for their future which is creation of a new nation which becomes indivisible.

The fourth importance goes beyond colonialism to post colonialism where violence is means of achieving reconstruction and building up of the nation. In this part which is termed as second decolonization, the people use solidarity achieved in the struggle for independence and helps them in doing away with regionalism and tribalism that existed before colonialization with the aim of reconstructing the nation they have fought for. The main difference between violence during struggle for independence and the one of decolonization is that while during colonization people are called upon to fight for their nation and against oppression, after the liberation people are called to fight against poverty, illiteracy and underdevelopment. In this case, people rise against those they put in power but they have failed to deliver according to expectations. While one would think that violence would end after the liberation, this argument shows that struggle is a continuing part of life and people need violence throughout their lives.

The fifth argument for violence according to Fanon is that it is a key to social truth and action. From this angle, Fanon argues that violence contains two phases where the first phase is based on spontaneous outbreak and it is unorganized and has no political concept but the people rise against an intruder. This phase of violence is motivated by racial hatred where people release pent up feelings and it helps people deal with alienation and oppression that has existed for some time. On the other hand, the second phase of violence is well organized and politicized and it raises consciousness of the oppressed where the end result is rising against the colonial structures that cause psychological alienation. The end result of either phases of violence is that it helps people the foundation of taking actions which builds self confidence among the people towards their own history. The liberating aspect of violence in this case helps people see the social truth and take actions to rectify what they consider.

Critique of Canon Violence and Marx Theory

Both Mar and Fanon have the same idea of violence as a way to fight alienism. While Marx perception is based on social classes and capitalism, Fanon focuses on the relation between the oppressors and the oppressed, where in both cases violence is seen as a justifiable means of achieving freedom. In his theory, fanon argues that violence is the only means that the natives or the oppressed overthrow the colonial governments. He termed violence in this case as the potent force that helps unit the people against a common enemy which helps them in gaining self-esteem and they use this unification and self-esteem to achieve their freedom from colonial domination. Marx theory supports this justification of violence where he argues that revolution is a justifiable means in which the oppressive capitalism culture can be removed and replaced with socialism. According to Marx’s argument, the capitalist have a tendency to resist any form of change as they are benefitting from the existing structure revolution is the only way where the oppressed have to use sustained violent actions until the capitalist bow to the socialism. From this perspective, both Marx and Fanon agree that violence is a necessary evil that can be used by the oppressed to achieve their goals.

The two philosophers’ ideology of struggle seems to be agreeing as they both identify themselves with the poor and oppressed. While Marx identifies himself with the masses or the ruling class that is oppressed by the capitalists due to the latter’s access to the means of production, Fanon identifies himself with the natives who are oppressed by the colonizers. Fanon’s philosophy is extensively based on the economic and psychological and economic oppression of the colonized by the foreign powers. Similarly, Marx focuses on the domination and control of resources by the few elites who have the power and alienate the masses and the working class hence exploiting them. Similar to Fanon’s justification of violence, Marx argues that freedom of the masses and the working class can only achieved through determination and sustained violent actions against the elites. While Fanon advocates for revolution to overthrow the foreign power of the people to regain their glory, Marx justifies revolution as a way of achieving a Utopia, which is a society that is free from oppression and suppression but before it is achieved, there has to be some sought of struggle and violence is unavoidable in this case. This Utopia that is built by revolution creates both psychological and economic peace which is similar to Fanon’s world of freedom from colonialism. In other words, although there are differences in the parties to the revolution, violence is accepted by both philosophies as a means of achieving transformation.

Conclusion

In summary, Frantz Fanon is one of the controversial philosophers that have been criticized for their open support of active violence. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Fanon’s acceptance of political violence by comparing it with Marx’s Theory. From the analysis, it is clear that Fanon’s justification of political violence is also supported by Marx’s argument for revolution. According to Fanon, violence is the only means that the oppressed or the colonized can use to overthrow the colonial powers that alienates them from their self-identity. Similarly, Marx argues that the only way that the ruling and the working class can free themselves from the shackles of capitalist exploitation is through revolution hence supports Fanon’s argument for violence.