The Moral Meaning of Revolution by Jon R. Gunnemann

Abstract

164 BOOK REVIEWS The Moral Meaning of Revolution. By JoN R. GuNNEMANN. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Pp. xi + 227. $15.00. " Revolution " in the title of this work has a restricted meaning. It does not refer to the right of resistance against tyranny justified on the basis of the natural law, i.e., on the assumption of a" fundamental moral community of the human race." Rather it refers to the Marxist concept " that a revolution brings into being a mode of human existence that has no precedent . The revolution is not for the purpose of restoring justice in the face of a contemptible violation of God's law, but rather to change fundamentally the relations people have with one another " (p. 6) . By way of analogy the author makes use of the well-known theory of scientific revolutions of Thomas S. Kuhn, according to which a " paradigm shift " in our way of perceiving the world is prepared by the discovery of more and more data which cannot be easily fitted into our old world-view. Ultimately the new view is accepted, although it can never be " proved " because there is really no neutral ground common to the two views in terms of which the new could be fairly judged as better than the old. Gunnemann shows that in a political system these anomalies which do not fit are perceived as "evils" which have to be explained by a "theodicy " (" the justification of God in the eyes of man ") . Thus " political and social revolutions are innovative responses to the problem of evil " (p. 19). Since, however, there is no neutral ground between the old and the new value systems (as there is, for example, in the Just War Theory), it seems out of the question to give an ethical justification of revolution. If our society is simply evil, then the oppressed have no reason to justify their actions by its perverted ethical norms. Thus whatever succeeds in bringing about the revolution is by that very fact morally justified. Gunnemann, therefore, wishes to raise for Christian liberation theologians the problem of how they can consistently argue for Marxist revolution on Christian ethical grounds. In pursuit of this aim Gunnemann discusses three authors: Frantz Fanon, Karl Marx, and Jilrgen Moltmann. Fanon is an example of a kind of apocalyptic theodicy which the author calls " revolutionary dualism." Since the existing order is pure evil, revolution takes the form of its destruction by any means available. Indeed violence, even when pragmatically ineffective, can be justified as a necessary act in order for the revolutionaries to purge themselves of all lingering inhibitions imposed on them by their oppressors. Today we see the effects of this theory in the increasing use of mindless terrorism, and even (in milder form) in feminist misanthropy . Hatred is encouraged as a catharsis of the slave mentality. Marx, to whom Gunnemann gives a much more extensive and penetrating analysis, is not a dualist. His theory of revolution is based on the '.BOOK REVIEWS 165 Hegelian dialectic according to which the new order, although radically other than the old, emerges from it by an Aufhebung which in destroying the old also assimilates it. Building also on Feuerbach's idea that modem man must become atheist because he is coming to see that " God " is only a projection of his ideal self, Marx attempts to end all theodicy by showing that the revolution will at last make it possible for us to overcome our self-alienation and become truly human, fully responsible for both the good and evil of our world. Gunnemann shows that for Marx the fundamental dialectical opposition is not between man and man, nor within man's own nature, but between man and nature. The revolution thus brings us at last face to face with our real enemy, the natural world, which we must master through science and technology, no longer wasting our human energies in class-warfare masked by ideological and religious illusions . Gunnemann's fundamental criticism of Marx is that, while Marx rightly saw that revolution is not an apocalypse but a carefully prepared development of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, he has been proved tragically mistaken...