“Millions of corpses cover the battlefields. Millions of
human beings have been crippled for the rest of their lives. . . . The war that
has produced this chaos is the outcome of imperialism, of the attempt on the
part of the capitalist classes of each nation to foster their greed for profit
by the exploitation of human labor and of the natural resources of the entire
globe."
So begins Leon Trotsky in his Zimmerwald Manifesto. By this point, the First World War was about
a year old. Trotsky attempts to unite socialists throughout Europe in opposing
the war. He does this, along with other ways, by painting a narrative that fits
to his mold of dissent.
According to Trotsky, the war clearly was the product of
imperialist self-interests. He ignores other causes of the war, like
nationalism and militarism, to allow his followers to unite around a common
enemy. As we discussed in class yesterday, it’s much easier to channel hate
into something constructive when that hate is directed at one thing or idea. In
this essay, Trotsky uses imperialism as that one thing or idea. In light of his
socialist ideals, this made sense because his audience, primarily “workingmen
and workingwomen! Mothers and fathers! Widows and orphans! Wounded and
crippled” of the “Socialists of the belligerent countries,” were likely to
rally around that cause.
He describes the horrors of war, the bloodshed, the economic
devastation, and the “gigantic human slaughterhouse” that was Europe to induce
pathos in his audience. This pathos helped his audience identify with the
narrative that Trotsky presented. The audience’s emotions could then carry them
toward the change that Trotsky suggested, a uniting of peoples in protest
against the war.
Very careful word choice adds to his emotional appeal. Excluding other possible causes for problems is a very difficult task but inciting the emotions of you audience helps to blind them from the logic and reason behind the real issue. It sounds to me like his discourse must have had much success.
ReplyDeleteHonestly if someone can appeal strongly enough to others and get them emotionally involved through pathos they can leave out ethos and logos to a degree. People make rash decisions every day simply based on emotions because they get caught up in the moment. It sounds like this piece plays off of that.
ReplyDelete