Trottin' with Trotsky

What a mustache.

It came to pass that I went to the temple with my ward instead of doing my blog post on time. This may or may not be a call for pity. (Is it working?)

Leon Trotsky's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, but the lack of consistency in his identity didn't seem to affect his ability to stick to the truth when he predicted the future. Trotsky's The Proletariat and the Revolution is an outline for the working class to use as they rise up against the government. Political riots had broken out in 1903-4 as a result of dissatisfaction with the government (with the failed Russo-Japanese War and other general stupidness), but the working class had abandoned their revolutionary cause. So Trotsky came in to revive the efforts.

To map out the proletarian revolution, Trotsky uses a great deal of anthypophora (i.e. asking questions and then answering them himself). This format is an appeal to logos, even if it isn't as sound as a syllogism or some statistical proof. It is clear. It is concise. It is simplified. "How do we do this? Why, we do this." Very appealing.

This clear-concise-simplified-ness is backed up by pleasant pockets of lists and repetitions. Trotsky uses a great deal of "we ought"'s as nails to hammer in his message. It's an indirect way of commanding that builds Trotsky's ethos ("Hey, I've thought this through. I have enough authority to say we should do this.). It also smothers his argument in a heap of oughts, each one richer and more convincing than the one previous.

That's what I do with
my wrenches.

The most powerful of these repetitions comes at the end of Trotsky's Proletariat. He gives his revolutionary forces a name and a cause: the NATIONAL CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY! (Sounds fit for a comic book, don'tcha think?) Then he uses more oughts and more powerful directives leading up to a wonderful, flourishing finish: "We ought to carry on the most intensive propaganda in the army in order that on the day of the strike each soldier...should know that he is facing the people who are demanding a National Constituent Assembly."

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!

Trotsky's words aren't the most pathos-sparking, but his direct, low-style speech is incredibly attractive to the logic. The proletariat must have taken his words to heart, too, because the revolution turned out almost exactly like his roadmap. I guess all a revolution needs is an outline to run with--and then the runners to run with it.

Importance of the Fourth Estate

               Ferdinand Lassalle’s “the Working Man’s Programme” really typifies some of Lassalle’s socialist ideas which took place during a break out of revolution in Germany during the 1800’s. His ideas received a lot of pushback, which caused Ferdinand to do some prison time, but also moved him almost effortlessly to the leadership of the new forming political party at the head of the social working class at the time. In his address about the importance of the working class, or the “Fourth Estate”, he uses a great deal of well thought out rhetoric to address his audiences and time his speech appropriately.

                Lassalle’s goal is to convince his audience of the importance of having the working class be involved in the state, and that their involvement will better all people of all classes, not just the individual. Lassalle uses Marx’s ideas about social change as a basis of authority for his arguments. This is really interesting as he eventually pulls away from Marx and uses those ideas to compare and contrast to his view that the state itself can be the tool to bring social reform. This is a powerful technique as he is able to appeal to all his audience members by mentioning ideals from the thoughts of Marx and then making it more in line with what is already in place. Some would call this a cowardly approach to a revolutionary speech, but I think it is a clever way, a “sales tactic” if you will, type of approach to transfer enthusiasm about his ideas to his audience.

              

              There is a great deal of pathos in Ferdinand Lassalle’s speech, but I feel it is used in a different way than some of the usual ways rhetoricians of the revolutionary age used this appeal.  Instead of using it to the effect of stirring the crowd to action by building their emotions, he uses it to show how much he cares about his ideas, and how much he emotionally feels these ideas are needed in the state. This has an effect on an audience that respects Lassalle’s ethos. Those that see his passion are stirred to action not by direct feelings that were conjured up in them by Ferdinand’s words, but by Ferdinand’s own emotion for this topic. This is a common approach used in coaching sports and is very effective if the relationship with your audience is strong. “What’s important to you, is now important to us” is a phrase that sums up well how Lassalle used the pathetic appeal in this speech.

The Assembly of the Third Estate

A depiction of the Third Estate
carrying the other two on its back.

The Third Estate of France represented the lowest class. The first two estates represented the nobles and the clergy and they tended to exclude any representation from the Third Estate. To effectively "get back" at the other representatives, the Third Estate representatives held their own assembly. They, of course, invited the other representatives, but the first two estates again ignored them. The assembly was designed to give authenticity and power to the Third Estate so that they could have an influence in making laws.

Analyzing the Rhetoric of Revolution

My students in rhetoric and civilization are currently examining revolutionary writings that range from the early Enlightenment up to the 20th century. I want them to recognize a pattern in these writings and speeches, the pattern of revolutionary rhetoric.

All students will be reading the Declaration of Independence, in which we can identify many of the traits of this genre of discourse. Then, each student (as assigned) will be responsible to do a rhetorical analysis of a specific writing from our text. They will take notes on their individual speeches, which they will discuss in small groups early next week (March 9th), and then they will formalize this into a blog post, a more polished rhetorical analysis.

I'd like to draw attention to several traits of this kind of discourse, so that these can be analytical categories to assist them.

Context

Revolutionary writings are always intimately tied to the historical setting and circumstances that give rise to the felt need to act and to speak. (See the rhetorical concept of kairos or the rhetorical situation). What are the larger or more proximate occasions that gave rise to this particular speech or writing?

Such writings, at least since the Enlightenment, also seem to have an international or global context to them. Revolutionaries look beyond national boundaries, often, just as they look beyond class divisions -- both for trends that justify their current actions and for including those of the same economic status despite differing political affiliations.

Epideictic Oratory

Revolutionary rhetoric is typically epideictic in nature -- more oriented to the present moment, and often employing two common modes of epideictic speech, encomium and especially vituperation (speeches of praise and of blame). It is often filled with complaint and blame. Who or what are the people or factors that are blamed?