Farc

[Communist Theory]

Should we support guerilla groups like FARC?
I'm a Native American and while a member of my tribe was in Columbia helping villages down there she was kidnapped by FARC and beheaded. While she was being held captive the U.S. government knew her location and decided not to help her or three other Native Americans from different tribes, so they were all executed. Now all this happened back in the mid-nineties, and I'm don't know that much about FARC so if anyone would mind telling me their ideology and such.

[RedAnarchist]

What was FARC doing in Brazil when they are Colombian?

[Communist Theory]

Oh yeah didn't think they were in Brazil.
Sorry told you I didn't know much about them.
I saw on CNN they were plotting to kill the Brazilian President so I assumed they based in Brazil.

[Charles Xavier]

farc has never beheaded anyone ever. There is no evidence of what you have said.

So lets assume your are making everything up.

Colombia has a fascist dictatorship which runs horrible abuses against the colombian people.

Farc formed out of the Liberal Guerrillas after the assassination of Gaitan who was about the become president of Colombia. He was killed by the conservatives. his death marked La Violencia which was a civil war between the liberals and the conservatives, Eventually the conservatives and liberals formed a power sharing agreemen. The FARC formed in 1964 as an armed wing of the Communist Party of Colombia, they are communist Guerrillas, they have been fighting for a socialist colombia.

Whether or not you agree with FARC they are better than the alternative.

I smell a troll.


Oh yeah didn't think they were in Brazil.
Sorry told you I didn't know much about them.
I saw on CNN they were plotting to kill the Brazilian President so I assumed they based in Brazil.


No they were going to kill you for being a provactuer

[RedAnarchist]

No they were going to kill you for being a provactuer

Was that comment necessary? Please keep it civil.

[Invincible Summer]

The poll question is worded very poorly: why the need to say "extreme violence?" What differentiates normal violence of a revolutionary group from "extreme" violence?

[Charles Xavier]

Was that comment necessary? Please keep it civil.


There was never such a story on CNN. They are trolling

[The Intransigent Faction]

I saw on CNN they were plotting to kill the Brazilian President so I assumed they based in Brazil.

...Turn off the American cable news!

[Communist Theory]

Here I found the news story on it. It was only three people and only two were Native American. I'm sorry it happened along time ago and I had forgotten the specifics.

5/11/02--Developments out of Washington indicate that the Bush administration is steadily moving toward a wider intervention in Colombia that will have grave consequences.
On April 30, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft indicted six members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) in the 1999 deaths of three North Americans. The three were Ingrid Washinawatok, Laheenae Gay and Terence Freitas.
Washinawatok and Gay were Native Americans.

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/Ali-statementoct00.html

I don't know why you thought they were beheaded, though. Leftist groups aren't religious fanatics and don't tend to behead people like Al Qaeda etc do.

[Communist Theory]

Damnit this 25 or more posts thing is annoying, Tupac is right they were not plotting to kill the Brazilian President it was the Columbian Defense Minister.
I apologize I heard it on TV in the morning and I have got a terrible memory in the morning. And somebody told me that they were beheaded.

[Comrade B]

I wouldn't doubt that crap being on CNN. CNN puts anything that will bring in cash on air.

Though this story sounds misinformed, we have to recognize that the FARC has done some pretty brutal things in the past. They function sort of in a way which has more focus on the goal than the process, if there are innocents in the way, they really don't care to put an effort into protecting them.
I would need to see some more statistics on the numbers of civilians and targets actually killed by them before I actually make a choice in defending them or not, but I do support violent revolution and the FARC's hostage policy.

[RedAnarchist]

A lot of leftist groups use violence in very different ways, if they use violence at all. Many are not as violent as FARC, whilst some are much more violent than FARC.

[Communist Theory]

I was wondering Tupac in what sense was I trolling?

[Charles Xavier]

I was wondering Tupac in what sense was I trolling?

Saying that FARC beheaded someone and that they plotted to kill Lula.

[Communist Theory]

I apologize I didn't check my facts before I posted.
They did were plotting to kill the Columbian Defense Minister or thats what the American news told me.

[Charles Xavier]

I apologize I didn't check my facts before I posted.
They did were plotting to kill the Columbian Defense Minister or thats what the American news told me.


Even if they were, that man is a violent reactionary responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

[Communist Theory]

Wouldn't it be reactionary to kill him?

[Mujer Libre]

No they were going to kill you for being a provactuer

Tupac, please don't be so aggressive and inflammatory.

Consider this a verbal warning.

The reason we have a learning forum is so that people can learn, and having some facts wrong is no reason to have you jump down someone's throat.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Violence is necessary I voted yes. But i'm still unsure what the OP meant by 'extreme violence'.

[pastradamus]

FARC generally dont leave the realm of Militancy when it comes to violence. They plant bombs, use mortars and Kalashnikov assault rifles but generally are not a group who will beat someone to death and there is no record of FARC beheading ANYONE. This accusation is complete drivel. If this was said, it was said by some far-right media source who made FARC appear akin to the fedayeen or some Iraqi Militant group who actually does behead people and most violently.

On another note, I cant see FARC lasting very long at its current size. Though FARC have excellent Guerilla tactics I believe it will be decimated eventually because of FARC's use of Inferior technology. They are using small arms mostly, whilst the Columbian government is being provided with state of the art equipment from Washington. FARC's last attempt to modernize themselves was when the three IRA (the IRA had one of the most advanced array of weapons of any guerilla/terrorist and even had its own engineering unit) group members who were sent out there were captured by Columbian officials -obviously this ended in failure for FARC.

[Kamerat]

I voted other. I support violence from a revolutionary group only if the violence is directed towards the reactionarys (government, military) and they have support from the people. Like the cuban revolution.

[robbo203]

Unless one has a crystal ball at ones disposal there is no way of saying that violence is necessary. How violent was the fall of state capitalism in the Eastern bloc? Not particularly.

I assume the question of violence relates to the means of bringing about a communist society. I would say all things being equal , that the advocacy of violence as a means of achieving communism is actually counterproductive and reactionary. One of the things that is often often overlooked about the use of violence is that it encourages hierarchical and authoritarian tendencies which as a libertarian communist I am repelled by. As a rule, the means and the ends should harmonise. It is also of course plain dumb to try to take on the full might of the state and be crushed to smithereens in the process.

In a sense, the use of violence signifies a degree of immaturity in the movement, an unreadiness for communism. If a majority of workers wanted and understood communism, it is reasonable to assume that the whole social climate would by then have become radically transformed and much more amenable to peaceful change. Which is not to rule out the possibility of some violence however but that would be an exception to the rule

[ZeroNowhere]

It is also of course plain dumb to try to take on the full might of the state and be crushed to smithereens in the process.
Dude, have you seen the US army? Those guys couldn't hurt a fly.

[BobKKKindle$]

I assume the question of violence relates to the means of bringing about a communist society.I agree that violence should not be fetishized, and that the ultimate goal of an anti-capitalist revolution should be the creation of a society in which violence - both subjective and objective - has been totally eliminated. However, I disagree with your assertion that a willingness to advocate or use violence in order to achieve political goals is itself a symptom of immaturity, because all experienced revolutionaries have quickly found that the bourgeoisie will never be willing to abdicate its privileges and allow the proletariat to overcome oppression without some form of violent confrontation, which can involve the bourgeoisie rallying other reactionary forces to its side against the proletariat, or, in the event that revolution does not break out in every country around the world at the same time, the bourgeoisie may call on imperialist forces to intervene and restore capitalism on its behalf, as occurred in Russia.

On the issue of FARC, whilst its true that the Uribe regime is effectively controlled by the United States, and is deeply reactionary, it's naive to assume that the FARC is capable of ensuring genuine working-class liberation. Putting aside the issue of whether the FARC would ever come to power in the absence of broader regional struggles, given the overwhelming military superiority of the Uribe state, the FARC suffers from the exact same problem that all other Maoist-inspired groups have encountered - it seeks to achieve socialism by building roots amongst the peasantry and then extending its political power to the cities through military struggle, whereas genuine Marxists recognize that socialism can only come into being through the struggles of the urban proletariat, and that the proletariat must be the agent of its own emancipation.

[Charles Xavier]

I agree that violence should not be fetishized, and that the ultimate goal of an anti-capitalist revolution should be the creation of a society in which violence - both subjective and objective - has been totally eliminated. However, I disagree with your assertion that a willingness to advocate or use violence in order to achieve political goals is itself a symptom of immaturity, because all experienced revolutionaries have quickly found that the bourgeoisie will never be willing to abdicate its privileges and allow the proletariat to overcome oppression without some form of violent confrontation, which can involve the bourgeoisie rallying other reactionary forces to its side against the proletariat, or, in the event that revolution does not break out in every country around the world at the same time, the bourgeoisie may call on imperialist forces to intervene and restore capitalism on its behalf, as occurred in Russia.

On the issue of FARC, whilst its true that the Uribe regime is effectively controlled by the United States, and is deeply reactionary, it's naive to assume that the FARC is capable of ensuring genuine working-class liberation. Putting aside the issue of whether the FARC would ever come to power in the absence of broader regional struggles, given the overwhelming military superiority of the Uribe state, the FARC suffers from the exact same problem that all other Maoist-inspired groups have encountered - it seeks to achieve socialism by building roots amongst the peasantry and then extending its political power to the cities through military struggle, whereas genuine Marxists recognize that socialism can only come into being through the struggles of the urban proletariat, and that the proletariat must be the agent of its own emancipation.


FARC-EP began with Urban proletariat roots with the Communist Party of Colombia. It was in 1992 that the PCC split with FARC.

[Marxist]

Beheading looks more like a paramilitar technique

[Matina]

Other.
Although the question posed is unclear, I think the poster meant groups like FARC.
Anyways we should support those groups against attacks by the bourgeoisie. It is important to understand that the FARC are reformists with guns though. They do not seek to establish socialism, as they think Colombia has to pass through the stage of capitalist democracy first :lol: . I wonder why those people bother calling themselves Leninists, when Lenin was against social collaboration. He always said that a revolution in a backwards country should be led by the proletariat, not being subordinated by the 'progressive bourgeoisie' like the so-called Leninists in Nepal do and FARC preaches.

Another important thing is that as Marxists we should have flexible tactics and methods. When a fucking guerilla struggle has given no results for 40 years, why the fuck would marxists continue ? The bolsheviks were always rigid on their ideas and flexible in their tactics. It is evident that the FARC is as close to Leninism, as reformism is to revolutionary marxism.

[redSHARP]

i find that Farc is a dinosaur left over from the cold war. they need to get a new angle or maybe new policies. they are losing ground to the Colombian/US imperial forces, and need to adapt.


i heard and done research about FARC for school, and FARC does have cocaine operations in Colombia. how much cocaine do they actually produce?

[Charles Xavier]

It is disputed that cocaine is actually produced by the rebels. The US and Colombia claims they are just in it for the drugs. However the Rebels themselves deny it. I think its more plausible that corrupt members of the FARC-EP are engaging in the drug trade but it is not official policy as they consider drug trafficking counter-revolutionary.

There has been no real evidence that FARC-EP is involved in the drug trade.

FARC has no choice but to fight, the legal political struggle in Colombia is closed. The last major attempt was in the 1980s where 10,000 members of Union Patriotica where kill by Paramilitaries. The legal communist party, which split from FARC in 1992, has had 6000 deaths over the last 10 years. Their members are harassed and killed by Paramilitary death squads.

What is the alternative? You preach that FARC are evil but really what choice do they have?

What should they do? I mean its not an easy choice.

[Jack]

Ignore Tupac's idiotic defense of a terrorist group.

In high school I wrote a 16 page paper on Modern Day Slavery. I brought up the FARC and their use of child soldiers, most of whom are forced into it. FARC gains most of its money from cocaine deals, and the rest by kidnapping the peasants they are fighting to "liberate".

My girlfriend is Columbian (not bourgeois, as I expect Tupac to call her) and most Columbians are against FARC.

By the way, Columbia is NOT a "fascist dictatorship". It's a Republic that consistantly elects right wing leaders because they are tough on the FARC-EP.

[Jack]

redSHARP, Tupac is right that the FARC does not produce cocaine, but they do guard cocaine fields and help export it for money. Communists protecting bourgeoisie who enslave peasants? Sounds reeeealll communist.

[Killfacer]

I don't support FARC, but not because i'm against the notion of using violence.

[Charles Xavier]

Ignore Tupac's idiotic defense of a terrorist group.

In high school I wrote a 16 page paper on Modern Day Slavery. I brought up the FARC and their use of child soldiers, most of whom are forced into it. FARC gains most of its money from cocaine deals, and the rest by kidnapping the peasants they are fighting to "liberate".

My girlfriend is Columbian (not bourgeois, as I expect Tupac to call her) and most Columbians are against FARC.

By the way, Columbia is NOT a "fascist dictatorship". It's a Republic that consistantly elects right wing leaders because they are tough on the FARC-EP.

So a country where union activists, political activists, communists and progressives are subject to state and parastate violence. Where the government in an open terroristic form engages in warfare against the people in the interests of transnational corporations. Is not fascists? Colombia is a fascist dictatorship, try and be an anarchist in Colombia.

Fascism doesn't mean no elections, it means open terrorist rule of the bourgeiosie. I mean if you want to disregard the whole national front, which was a power sharing agreement between liberal and conservative oligarchs who after awhile sported no political differences and didn't hold elections until 1974. Voting irregularities and violence at polling stations are common. In fact only 30% - 50% of the electoral populations even participate in the elections.

Colombia is under fascist rule. If you were a well to do German you probably didn't give two shits about Hitler or Mussolini, until you saw the empire contract.

If colombia isn't fascist how come legal communists members were killed by the thousands and trade unionists deaths in Colombia outnumber the rest of the world combined?

What is farc suppost to do, jack? Lay down their arms and face systemic destruction?

If you were leader of FARC what would be your next step?

FARC-EP wants to settle the armed conflict but there is no road open for that.

[Pogue]

Could someone please link a fairly objective article on the situation in Columbia so we can see for ourselves whether or not Columbia is fascist etc?

[Vendetta]

My opinion of FARC isn't really all that informed, but they seem to me to be legititmate revolutionaries who got too caught up in the drugs.

[Communist Theory]

Tupac is very knowledgable in the matters of FARC. We should all give him positive rep for his knowledge.

[Communist Theory]

Now I don't know who to blame for the death of Ingrid or the others. This is an excerpt from the book Resource Rebels.

According to an in-depth investigative report by Jeff Wollock, a frequent reporter on native issues, the CIA and U.S. military intelligence had been intercepting FARC communications prior to the kidnapping, as part of a Colombian military offensice called "Operation Total Eclipse." The objective was to protect Occidental's pipeline. The intercept was still in progress when Terry, Lahe and Ingrid were kidnapped, and continued throughout their entire ordeal. The intercepted tapes were later played on Columbian radio. They leave no doubt that from the very beginning, FARC intended to kill them. . .An editorial in the Colombian newspaper El Espectador in March 1999 raised the question of complicity in the murders: If Army intelligence has been intercepting the 45th Front [of FARC] for over a month now, why did they allow the situation to deteriorate and not do anything to save the lives of those three Americans? . . .As far as is known, military intelligence serves to prevent and to alert the country to new challenges and possible acts that can affect the life of its citizens. But an intelligence that is only capable of operating ex post facto fails to remove certain suspicions as to its real reac and projection.

[Charles Xavier]

This is a good movie on FARC. I would recommend viewing it.

http://www.communist-party-sk.ca/guerrilleramovie/

[Communist Theory]

What does it say in the begginning?

[Charles Xavier]

What does it say in the begginning?
check the comments someone already translated it.

Subtitles are really bad on it but otherwise its a good movie.

[Bitter Ashes]

I must admit that this is the first time I've heard of FARC, which I suppose puts me in an unbaised position.
Violence may be needed to directly protect workers from violent reactionaries who are in the active process of harming the working class. In that context I can not only condone, but also support thier actions.
Meanwhile, violence directed towards those who do not pose an immediate physical threat to workers is nothing short of gratutious and not to be encouraged, ever.
The only other time violence is acceptable is to punish those directly responsible for the deaths of workers, especially where those workers did not pose a violent threat to those individuals.
Where FARC's attacks fall into that, I'll explore and be able to comment further when I'm better educated, but regardless, any descion is based on that no matter who is doing it.

[bruno]

If you want to change the world you must use violence. Because your enemies use violence to protect their system against you.
For now, FARC(colombia), PFLP(philistine), Tamils(Sri Lanka), PKK (Turkey), ETA(Spain), IRA(Ireland) etc. are big and powerful organizations. All of them use violence and they definitely must use. In the past also we can see lots of samples; che, fidel, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Giap, uncle Ho...

[Charles Xavier]

The PKK are fascists, the Tamil Tigers are not without worker's blood on their hand, the ETA are petty bourgeoisie nationalists. The IRA has disbanded. FARC-EP is in a civil war and the PFLP are fighting an imperialist power.

The two good examples you mentioned don't want to use violence but are forced to, the lack of an option for a peaceful political struggle comes to ahead, the FARC-EP said they wanted to avoid the conflict but lacked the sufficient strenght to do so.

[bruno]

Firstly, sorry for my bad English.

The PKK,the Tamils,the ETA and the IRA are national salvation organizations (may be there is an another literature term for "national salvation" in English) so they are not proletarian parties. But they are not fascist and not bourgeoisie nationalists. You know, Irish nationalism and British nationalism are not same. The first on the left and second on the right.

[Communist Theory]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Washinawatok

[an apple]

If you want to change the world you must use violence. Because your enemies use violence to protect their system against you.
For now, FARC(colombia), PFLP(philistine), Tamils(Sri Lanka), PKK (Turkey), ETA(Spain), IRA(Ireland) etc. are big and powerful organizations. All of them use violence and they definitely must use. In the past also we can see lots of samples; che, fidel, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Giap, uncle Ho...

To my knowledge all of these organizations (other than the FARC) use direct and intentional terrorist tactics. How on earth do you establish a popular revolution while murdering the people you are trying to liberate? Sure, they kill what you might call non-innocents (landowners, businessmen etc.) but at the end of the day members of the working class are being murdered by those who wish to free them.

[Jack]

Also, FARC even attacks other guerilla groups (so much for being "backed into a corner") like the ERP (which it declared as an enemy, though it was Marxist too) and the ELN (who's territory it has been encroaching onto).

[Charles Xavier]

Also, FARC even attacks other guerilla groups (so much for being "backed into a corner") like the ERP (which it declared as an enemy, though it was Marxist too) and the ELN (who's territory it has been encroaching onto).


The ELN, FARC, and the ERP(who have disbanded) have worked together in the past and the ELN and FARC work together currently and are seeking increased cooperation. FARC also had an alliance with the EPL and the M-19(disbanded). Don't know where your information comes from?

And it doesn't matter who calls themselves marxists in words. I mean Patria Roja in Venezuela calls themselves Marxists, but they had killed chavez supports. The PKK call themselves Marxists, but they kill communist party members.

[mosfeld]

An estimated 20-30 percent of FARC combatants are under 18 years old, with many as young as 12 years old, for a total of around 5000 children.

Is this justifiable or, hopefully, refutable?

[Intifadah]

Yes. I must thank them for the whole 'Colombia 3' affair which got loyalist politicians in a massive hissy fit :rolleyes:

[bruno]

To my knowledge all of these organizations (other than the FARC) use direct and intentional terrorist tactics. How on earth do you establish a popular revolution while murdering the people you are trying to liberate? Sure, they kill what you might call non-innocents (landowners, businessmen etc.) but at the end of the day members of the working class are being murdered by those who wish to free them.

Without weapon nobody can change the world. Can you give me a reference or an example about a bloodless revolution? I think there is only one example, Salvador Allende's revolution. He tried to build socialism in Chili without weapon. But finally he were killed and he lost his government.

[bruno]

And it doesn't matter who calls themselves marxists in words. I mean Patria Roja in Venezuela calls themselves Marxists, but they had killed chavez supports. The PKK call themselves Marxists, but they kill communist party members.

The PKK don't call themselves Marxist, they call themselves national liberation movement. And Marxists support them within "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination".

The PKK killed 4 members of Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party(TDKP) in 1993 but this was an exception (also, communist parties attack each other in turkey, if you want to learn the details, I can give you). TDKP and its follower party EMEP are still supporting the PKK.

In Turkey there are 4 Marxist organizations who don't support PKK. In my opinion they don't understand "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination"( or don't want understand "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" because of their hidden nationalism). I think their members gave you some information about the PKK.

[Charles Xavier]

Is this justifiable or, hopefully, refutable?


Its false


Without weapon nobody can change the world. Can you give me a reference or an example about a bloodless revolution? I think there is only one example, Salvador Allende's revolution. He tried to build socialism in Chili without weapon. But finally he were killed and he lost his government.

This is not true. The Bolshevik revolution was virtually bloodless.


The PKK don't call themselves Marxist, they call themselves national liberation movement. And Marxists support them within "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination".

The PKK killed 4 members of Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party(TDKP) in 1993 but this was an exception (also, communist parties attack each other in turkey, if you want to learn the details, I can give you). TDKP and its follower party EMEP are still supporting the PKK.

In Turkey there are 4 Marxist organizations who don't support PKK. In my opinion they don't understand "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination"( or don't want understand "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" because of their hidden nationalism). I think their members gave you some information about the PKK.

This isn't about the PKK. The PKK call themselves not just Marxist but Marxist-Leninists. (check out here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party). Marxists do support the right to self determination but not bourgeoisie nationalism. The communist parties have been killed by the PKK for recruiting members in Kurdistan, they think they are the only ones that have a right to organize in Kurdistan. They have mostly abandoned the idea of class struggle for the banner of nationalism. The national question of Kurdistan will not be solved under capitalism.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

It isn't the violence that throws me off or even the drug trafficking that much.It's the extortion.A revolutionary group should never rob it's people.But my biggest point is EXTORTION IS CAPITALISM NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

[Patchd]

This is not true. The Bolshevik revolution was virtually bloodless.

What about the civil war resulting from October? Was that virtually bloodless?

[Vincent P.]

There has been no real evidence that FARC-EP is involved in the drug trade.
Come on... that sounds kinda like "there is no proof CO2 causes global warming" or "there is no proof that our CEO has been involved in tax avoidance"...:laugh:
The guys need substancial amounts of easy and undercover money for their activities, and coca happens to be growing like lawn. What would you do? I cannot and I will not give any definitive judgement on the matter, for you must know better than I do on the matter, but either FARCs are notorious drug dealers or too honest to be trusted:lol:.

[an apple]

Without weapon nobody can change the world. Can you give me a reference or an example about a bloodless revolution? I think there is only one example, Salvador Allende's revolution. He tried to build socialism in Chili without weapon. But finally he were killed and he lost his government.

First of all, I never said that bloody revolution is wrong. I mean that bloody terrorist attacks on innocents are wrong.

Second of all, listen to what Amaru said:

The October revolution was virtually bloodless. The civil war which followed was a result of the White Russians' decision to begin a long and bloody conflict for the tsar.

And you say name a bloodless revolution, ok, here:

The Prague Spring - Czechslovakia
The Solidarity Movement - Poland
The Singing Revolution - The Baltic States
The Velvet Revolution - Czechslovakia
The Carnation Revolution - Portugal
The People Power Revolution - Portugal
The Bulldozer Revolution - Serbia
The Rose Revolution - Georgia
The Orange Revolution - Ukraine
EDSA Revolution - Phillipines

Oh, and don't forget the one that toppled the Soviet fucking Union:
1991 August Putsch

These revolutions toppled corrupt and authoritarian governments and stopped dictators such as Slobodan Milosevic and Ferdinand Marcos.

So don't tell me that there is no such thing as a successful peaceful revolution.

[Patchd]

The October revolution was virtually bloodless. The civil war which followed was a result of the White Russians' decision to begin a long and bloody conflict for the tsar.

That's the thing, the civil war was a continuation of the "revolution", or as others might seem more comfortable to, a reaction from the Russian ruling class, still a continuation of the process.

In addition, the civil war wasn't fought over the Tsar, it was fought over attempting to maintain the old status quo before February, or to install themselves as the political figurehead of Russia.


So don't tell me that there is no such thing as a successful peaceful revolution.

Revolutions force a change in society, rather than "peacefully" transforming it. There doesn't have to be a death toll to make it violent, or a forceful act, it is forceful in itself.

If I hit someone, it doesn't make me less forceful or violent simply because I haven't spilt their blood. :rolleyes:

[an apple]

It would seem to me that a violent revolution would mean a bit more than just walking up to the prime minister/president and kicking him about a bit.

It would mean assaults on government strongholds, executions etc.

And as for the October revolution, it just depends on how you see it.

[Patchd]

It would seem to me that a violent revolution would mean walking up to the prime minister/president and kicking him about a bit.

It would mean assaults on government strongholds, executions etc.

What? Why?


Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt.
...
It should be noted that violence can be non-physical as well.

I also doubt that there were no injuries whatsoever as a result of these revolutions, someone must have got hurt due to no fault of their own, perhaps by police "control" at a demonstration. I remember the Orange revolution being broadcasted on TV when it was going on and it being reported that there was a small case of police violence against protesters.


And as for the October revolution, it just depends on how you see it.

I dislike it when people separate different parts of a revolution and make it seem as if it happened overnight! It may seem like that, but the 4 years of war in order to sustain Bolshevik power, that quickly took place after October, begs to differ.

[an apple]

"It would seem to me that a violent revolution would mean walking up to the prime minister/president and kicking him about a bit.

It would mean assaults on government strongholds, executions etc."

Oops! I think I made a bit of a mistake I meant to say

"It would seem to me that a violent revolution would mean a bit more than walking up to the prime minister/president and kicking him about a bit.

It would mean assaults on government strongholds, executions etc"

And since when were we even talking about violent revolutions, I thought we were on about bloodless revolutions.

[Charles Xavier]

First of all, I never said that bloody revolution is wrong. I mean that bloody terrorist attacks on innocents are wrong.

Second of all, listen to what Amaru said:

The October revolution was virtually bloodless. The civil war which followed was a result of the White Russians' decision to begin a long and bloody conflict for the tsar.

And you say name a bloodless revolution, ok, here:

The Prague Spring - Czechslovakia
The Solidarity Movement - Poland
The Singing Revolution - The Baltic States
The Velvet Revolution - Czechslovakia
The Carnation Revolution - Portugal
The People Power Revolution - Portugal
The Bulldozer Revolution - Serbia
The Rose Revolution - Georgia
The Orange Revolution - Ukraine
EDSA Revolution - Phillipines

Oh, and don't forget the one that toppled the Soviet fucking Union:
1991 August Putsch

These revolutions toppled corrupt and authoritarian governments and stopped dictators such as Slobodan Milosevic and Ferdinand Marcos.

So don't tell me that there is no such thing as a successful peaceful revolution.

Cool we have a reactionary here.


These aren't revolution they are counter-revolutions, they were the overthrow of the revolution and putting in imperialist-back lackeys who sold their countries for peanuts.

You need to check out the definition of revolution, its when a progressive class takes power from the ruling class. Here you had the ruling class taking power from the progressive class.


It isn't the violence that throws me off or even the drug trafficking that much.It's the extortion.A revolutionary group should never rob it's people.But my biggest point is EXTORTION IS CAPITALISM NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.


In the areas that FARC-EP controll they are the government, as such they collect taxes. i guess you can argue any tax collection is extortion, but the state will lock you up for tax evasion.


Come on... that sounds kinda like "there is no proof CO2 causes global warming" or "there is no proof that our CEO has been involved in tax avoidance"...:laugh:
The guys need substancial amounts of easy and undercover money for their activities, and coca happens to be growing like lawn. What would you do? I cannot and I will not give any definitive judgement on the matter, for you must know better than I do on the matter, but either FARCs are notorious drug dealers or too honest to be trusted:lol:.

I think after 45 years they should have had enough of a case for drug trafficking if it was true. And my conclusion is that its not FARC-EP policy on drug trafficking, its rather some corruption in the ranks of FARC-EP, FARC-EP is big its not some sort of small time operation, they cannot watch over everyone at all times, FARC-EP considers drug trade counter-revolutionary and does punish members for engaging in such activities.

[bruno]

This is not true. The Bolshevik revolution was virtually bloodless.

The Bolshevik revolution didn't happen in one or two days. The 1905 revolution and The April 1917 revolution prepared the Bolshevik Revolution. During this time there was enough blood. Also, after revolution there was a big violence.



This isn't about the PKK. The PKK call themselves not just Marxist but Marxist-Leninists.
This topic is not about the PKK, I'm sorry for this discussion, but I live in Turkey and I know the PKK. Until 1990s they were Marxist-Leninist, and then they removed Marxism from their party regulations. The PKK are heterogeneous, they include Marxists but they are not a Marxist movement. Only National Liberation Movement.

[bruno]

And you say name a bloodless revolution, ok, here:

The Prague Spring - Czechslovakia
The Solidarity Movement - Poland
The Singing Revolution - The Baltic States
The Velvet Revolution - Czechslovakia
The Carnation Revolution - Portugal
The People Power Revolution - Portugal
The Bulldozer Revolution - Serbia
The Rose Revolution - Georgia
The Orange Revolution - Ukraine
EDSA Revolution - Phillipines



All of them are reforms in spite of their names.

[an apple]

All of them are reforms in spite of their names.

So you mean to tell me that the overthrow of a hardline Communist government is achieved by 'reforms' or that tyrants such as Milosevic and Marcos can just be handed a copy of a new constitution and told to bugger off? Sounds like bollocks to me.


Tupac Amaru II says You need to check out the definition of revolution, its when a progressive class takes power from the ruling class. Here you had the ruling class taking power from the progressive class.

I don't think that people like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel were 'ruling class'. Here you had a repressed progressive class taking power from a corrupt communist elite.

And sure enough, you're right. They did eventually sell their countries' out to excessive capitalism, but I would not agree with you on the overthrown governments being 'progressive'.

And unless you believe in the theory of 'permanent revolution' it wasn't the revolution being overthrown, it was authoritarian governments decades old.
__________________________________________________ ____________

And as for the FARC, I recently read an article in National Geographic and it is clear that FARC is involved with the cocaine industry, however, you also have to remember that for some of these peasants it's the only way to make their livelihood and for FARC, who else is funding their struggle for freedom?

A bit of the article is here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature2/index.html

And FARC do keep quite an eye on things. They have set up schools where there have been none, they do a good job keeping the order as well. In FARC-occupied areas, if you are charged with murder, you will be tried and if found guilty, sent to a FARC labour camp where you will be put to work helping to build the infrastructure.

I also read something about laws against excessive alchohol use etc.

It seems to me that they are waging a good war.

[Charles Xavier]

For Jack and his Girlfriend,

http://lanr.blogspot.com/2009/04/alvaro-uribes-love-for-freedom-of.html

Talking about peace is supporting terrorism!!!!

[Wanted Man]

The Prague Spring - Czechslovakia
The Solidarity Movement - Poland
The Singing Revolution - The Baltic States
The Velvet Revolution - Czechslovakia
The Carnation Revolution - Portugal
The People Power Revolution - Portugal
The Bulldozer Revolution - Serbia
The Rose Revolution - Georgia
The Orange Revolution - Ukraine
EDSA Revolution - Phillipines

Oh, and don't forget the one that toppled the Soviet fucking Union:
1991 August Putsch
4 counter-revolutions, one power struggle in Czechoslovakia that was defeated by the Soviets, one thing that doesn't exist ("People Power Revolution - Portugal"?), one uprising against fascism that was easily co-opted by the bourgeoisie, one uprising that overthrew a horrible dictator, but look where the Philippines are now, and three electoral defeats of pro-Russian autocrats in favour of pro-western autocrats.

By this point, I have to ask, do you have any idea what a revolution is?

[Charles Xavier]

Recent statement by the world federation of Democratic Youth on Colombia,

Solidarity towards Colombia

The World Federation of Democratic Youth, is following with much attention the serious situation of the human rights lived in Colombia and particularly the continuous attacks against the youth and students leaders, which are chased, murdered and force do leave the country, without any guarantee by the fascist government of Colombia.

The Government of Alvaro Uribe has continued it policies of hostilities against the young people in the last weeks, with the support of the paramilitary groups (who are said not exist anymore), murdering four students and wounding other three, distributing propaganda to create fear among the population.

WFDY, condemns these actions that have been held against the Colombian young people and students, by the fascist government of Alvaro Uribe Velez, and calls upon all its member and friend organizations as well as all the progressive youth of the world to express its condemnation of the colombian government and the support to the demand of the youth organizations of Colombia so that justice is made and that the material and intelectual responsible for everything that happened are investigated and punished.

The CC/HQ of WFDY

Budapest, April 7, 2009

[el_chavista]

http://doc2.noticias24.com/0809/m264.jpg
Inauguration of Marulanda's Plaza in Caracas

A discussion about the FARC in http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/post/farc-web-page/

-I have been trying to log onto the farc web page for several days now and no luck at www.farcep.org (http://www.farcep.org). Does anyone know if there is a problem or is just jammed?

-I think they were just banned from .org because they're flagged as a terrorist organization. Anncol (FARC's "press agency" also lost their anncol.nu website and now got a anncol.eu domain. (forgive me for giggling). I think you'll have to look further down google to find something that belongs to the FARC, but mostly their communication is now done through http://www.anncol.eu and http://www.abpnoticias.com (a venezuelan based bolivarian "press agency")

-Found another one that may be related to the FARC: http://bolivarsomostodos.org/

-We should not be surprised that the voice of the FARC is being oppressed - large media conglomerates are the running dogs of a fascistic or capitalistic repressive state regimes, and both organizations are bent on promoting their corresponding interests over and above all others by crushing the voices raised against them. The FARC's website is an outgrowth of the struggle of the workers against the reactionary bourgeois ideologues and the cosmopolitan ‘capitalist-roaders’ arrayed against them, a true vox populi, and it is through the disciplined implementation of modernizing technologies, such as the internet, that the proletariat (led by a vanguard of the communist party - the FARC) will mobilize the necessary tools to protect and further their own interests. When not under direct threat of the government jackboot, the FARC uses their website to forcefully thwart the false consciousness promulgated by the decadent elites and the brownshirt rabble controlled by Uribe, educate each other about class-based issues, and to build solidarity around socialist realism, further connecting their faithfull viewers to Marxist-Leninist concepts of the dialectical worker-capitalist conflict underpinning modern society.

Workers of the world, unite!