Frantz Fanon Concerning Violence Analysis

The existentialist philosophers wrote largely about the negative side of humanity. Their focus on the negative aspects of human life and human consciousness led to a philosophy centered on war, suffering, and violence. This focus on violence remains when they discuss the French colonization of Algeria. The existentialist philosophers Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, and Jean-Paul Sartre all believe that violence is the only means of casting off the chains of colonial oppression. Although they are correct in this assertion, they fail to recognize the full implications of this claim, namely, the promise of future violence and the impossibility of lasting peace. Frantz Fanon writes, in “Concerning Violence,” about a project of colonization focused …show more content…
Violence is only a temporary solution. Violence will not create lasting peace. Fanon, for instance, writes on the dehumanization of the oppressed and their attempts to become rehumanized. If one were to follow his vision, one would see the perpetuation of violence. When the dehumanized are powerless, they need to fight to become humanized. They are at the bottom of a social pyramid, fighting to be at the top. However, once the oppressed reach the top of the social pyramid, they will become the oppressors. This is, at best, a simple role reversal. Because the oppressed have been powerless for so long, they will, upon reaching a state of relative power, desire to express that power. To express that power, they will become oppressors. They will, after achieving freedom from oppression, perpetuate that oppression. The so-called “end of oppression” will not be the end of a race, but the beginning of a new cycle of oppression.
Sartre claims that violence will heal the wounds of the oppressed, however, this violence will open new wounds. The wounds of the oppressed will be healed, granted, but the oppressor will gain wounds. This wounds will then need to be healed through violence, and more violence will ensue. The use of violence in oppressive regimes will only create a cycle of more …show more content…
The revolution must be from the bottom up. However nice this may sound, it is wrong. Because of the exploitive nature of colonialism, the colonized people do not have the means to enact successful socialism. A prerequisite to successful socialism is capitalism, or, more specifically, the building of a capitalist infrastructure. This capitalist infrastructure is shown by the building of factories, farms, and means of transportation. Because the colonizer exploits the colonized land for its resources, leaving few resources in the colony, this infrastructure is left unbuilt, and will likely take a significant amount of time to build. One need only look at the examples, the classic examples American capitalists give for the non-viability of communism, of the U.S.S.R., China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. The reason that socialism, and subsequently communism, failed in these nations is the lack of capitalist infrastructure. Sartre’s idea is idyllic, but wrong. This socialist failure will, of course, lead to more violence, as the collapse of a system of government (in this instance, socialism) usually