Marxism: Individual vs.

Group

Gloria Park (Gr.12)

Talking about Marxism, people usually talk about the mass of the people rather than a single
one. Whether it is about thesis, anti-thesis, or synthesis, the role of the people is important. Yes,
revolution is something to do with people not an individual. Then, is there no great man in Marxism?
Can we discuss Marxism without the role of any single persons? If it is only for group of people, why
Marxism is named after one person, Karl Marx? Or, if there is a room for great men, why Marxism
focuses on the role of the people?

Until 1931, El Salvador’s government was under the power of a family of Melendez (Skidmore,
Smith, & Green, 2014). Lands were not distributed well , and it caused the farmers to rise up against the
government (Skidmore, Smith, & Green, 2014). However, it did not go as the farmers wanted. Instead, a
military government replaced Melendez family with the idea that turmoil of the citizens should be
regulated by oppression (Skidmore, Smith, & Green, 2014). The government did not care for the
farmers’ situation; the coffee export was in prosperity, but people became much poorer (BowerBert,
1991). In 1975, approximately 40% of the farmers did not have any lands (Skidmore, Smith, & Green,
2014). This caused more severe poverty of the majority of people.

The film ‘In the Name of the People’ talks about the lives of the guerrillas of El Salvador. The
insurgents say they are fighting against injustices of the government that does not provide people any
food, clothing and education (ChristopherFrank, 1985). They are gathered together in a mountain,
educating, training, preparing people for the fights with the government soldiers (ChristopherFrank,
1985). In Marxist theory, this kind of guerrilla warfare is the stage of anti-thesis, revolution. Since the
thesis, the situation of not having any mode of production, lands, caused the poverty, it led people to
rise against the government. The upper class who controls the government does not have any idea of
distributing land. Whereas, the lower class people are demanding land. This different class interest led
people to revolt for change.

I want to go back to my critical question: is there no great man in Marxism? For me, there is.
Well, Marxism is a theory about the role of the people, but certainly, there are specific individuals who
play vital role in history. For El Salvador, I think the great man was Archbishop Oscar Romero. He
declared that insurgency is justified since all the peaceful means are depleted (Skidmore, Smith, &
Green, 2014, p. 193). He blamed the authorities for causing the poverty of the people, and his preaching
let people to see the injustices of the country (Skidmore, Smith, & Green, 2014). Shockingly, he was
murdered in the San Salvador Church, and his words and death inspired lots of people to join the
revolution (Skidmore, Smith, & Green, 2014).

Then, what is the role of the great man in Marxism? First, they are inspirations of people. People
are informed about false consciousness of the society and inspired to change. I think Romero’s saying of
justified rebel made people to be more active in revolution. Since the high religious leader said that,
who else can condemn the revolutionaries? Next, following to the inspiration, a great man can be a
catalyst. One of the critique against the great man theory is that revolution continues after the death of
the great men. Yes, the revolution started before and after the time of Romero. However, in my opinion,
he was able to accelerate the revolution in El Salvador. Think about a plant. It will grow since there are
rain, sun and soil. A catalyst can promote it to grow faster. The internal conflicts in El Salvador caused
people to rise for sure, but Romero inspired people and pushed them to question and go against the
injustices.

Yes, the great man I was mentioning is the intellectual, the idea of Antonio Gramsci. He argued
that the role of the intellectuals is crucial in revolution; they lead an enlightenment of the people to find
the fault of the hegemony of the society (Burke , n.d.). I consider intellectuals as great men because not
everyone functions as intellectuals. Gramsci argued that “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore
say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.” (Burke , n.d.). It is like all men have
potential to be influential but some really do so. As Gramsci contended, intellectuals, specifically organic
intellectuals make people question the current hegemony of the society, start class consciousness, and
triggers people’s movement against the oppression (Burke , n.d.). Gramsci said, “There is no human
activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded” (Burke , n.d.).

If the role of great men, so-called organic intellectuals is so significant in Marxism, why does it
focus on the role of the PEOPLE?

It is because the intellectuals are just the part of history. Yes, they are great men, because they
have big impact on people and history. Archbishop Romero inspired people. His words and death made
people conscious about the injustice of the society. Ok, but what is the use of these things without the
participation of the people? What is the use of catalyst to a plant without any soil, sunlight and rain?
The revolution will never happen. On the other hand, will a plant not grow without catalyst? No, it will
grow, as revolution in El Salvador happened although Archbishop Romero died.

Antonio Gramsci himself was an organic intellectual. Marxism was named after Karl Marx. Both
gave the inspiration to the people. Certainly, they had a great impact that their ideas are still ongoing till
now. So what? History is not the story of them. History is the story of people. Gramsci and Marx are the
parts of PEOPLE. Many people look at the history with great men. When we talk about independence of
the U.S., we usually mention George Washington. When we talk about the independence of Mexico,
Father Hidalgo is always there. Yes, they are great men, influential people in history. However, let us not
focus only one thing. History is People’s story. Archbishop Romero indeed had influence, but when we
talk about the history of El Salvador, I think we should not miss the guerrillas who fought against the
government!
References

Bower, B. (1991). Exploring Canada and latin America. Heath.

Burke , B. (n.d.). Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education. Retrieved from infed.org:
http://infed.org/mobi/antonio-gramsci-schooling-and-education/#organic_intellectuals

Christopher, F. (Director). (1985). In the Name of the People [Motion Picture].

Crucified Church - El Salvador (n.d.). [Motion Picture].

Skidmore, T. E., Smith, P. H., & Green, J. N. (2014). Modern Latin America. Seoul, Korea: Greenbee Press.