Do you support FARC?

[Radical]

I was wondering how many of you on RevLeft support FARC?

[OneNamedNameLess]

I did sympathise with the FARC when I was a brainless littlle boy. Now, I see no point in applauding their struggle. The FARC have no mass support and I do not approve of their tactics. Furthermore, focoism or Guevaraism or whatever you call it is outdated. It is ineffective and should not be resorted to these days as it is simply a waste of good revolutionaries

[Revy]

They appear to operate more like a drug cartel than revolutionaries. :glare: But what I am concerned about is any attacks on civilians, not really the kidnappings. The hostages seem to be mostly legislators or military.

I also don't trust that they care enough about revolutionary socialist theory, and that they seem like left-wing nationalists.

But I will admit that I am not really an expert on them and if anyone really knowledgeable can provide info to correct me I am willing to listen.

[Sam_b]

Define 'support'.

[Radical]

They appear to operate more like a drug cartel than revolutionaries. :glare: But what I am concerned about is any attacks on civilians, not really the kidnappings. The hostages seem to be mostly legislators or military.

I also don't trust that they care enough about revolutionary socialist theory, and that they seem like left-wing nationalists.

But I will admit that I am not really an expert on them and if anyone really knowledgeable can provide info to correct me I am willing to listen.

FARC Tax people who sell drugs in their area to fund the armed struggle. They also kidnap rich imortant capitalists and hand them back for ransom.

FARC do not purposly attack civilians. They have done in the past by mistake, but never on purpose. Despite what people hear, FARC still have a lot of support, mainly in the rural area's.

We must also remember that Colombia are the only country in Latin America that supports US imperialism. They have allowed USA to build bases in Colombia which poses a great threat to Venezuela.

I dont consider FARC a terrorist group. They are a Beligerent force. They have been forced into a hostile position where kidnapping and taxing druglords is needed in order to continue the struggle.


focoism or Guevaraism or whatever you call it is outdated. It is ineffective and should not be resorted to these days as it is simply a waste of good revolutionaries

Focoism is a thoery that was designed for Under-Developed/Developing countries. It still very much works. I think to say it doesn't work is very irrational.. The only reason FARC haven't succeeded is because they dont currently have enough support. Your basically saying Armed Struggle can't trigger Revolution, when its already proven that it can.

[Sam_b]

They also kidnap rich imortant capitalists and hand them back for ransom

My, what a great tactic. Propoganda of deed rubbish that alienates the class.


We must also remember that Colombia are the only country in Latin America that supports US imperialism

No they're not.


It still very much works

Again, define 'works'. Last night on Livechat you went on about the merits of Focoism and how it has allowed Cuba to be on "the road to socialism", yet couldn't comment on how, and couldn't even answer a simple question on democratic worker's control of the means of production. Justify your claims.

And you still haven't defined 'support'. Judging by your poll terms you either mean (quite confusingly) 'with us or against us' full uncritical support.

[Luís Henrique]

Define 'support'.

Yeah, this.

I don't actually support their strategy (which by the way is not focoism or Guevarism, but Protracted Popular War), that I see as conducing to failure, but I would defend them against this kind of slander:


They appear to operate more like a drug cartel than revolutionaries.

That's what the Colombian State (which in itself can be said to operate more like a drug cartel than anything else, but I digress) says. I have never seen any actual evidence of this.

There are places in the world where you either produce some illegal commodity or you starve (because the so enlightened world market isn't interested in anything else you may produce); some areas of Colombia (some controled by the State, some controled by the FARC) fall into that definition. There is a practical alternative: genocide. You can't be accused of accomplicity with drug trafficking merely because you don't undertake such practical alternative.

Luís Henrique

[Conquer or Die]

The problem is that there seems to be no viable journalistic reporting or statistics that seem to back up the claims that FARC is still a viable communist belligerent. The popular line seems to be that many leftist guerillas in South America achieve a capitalist black market outlook by dealing in drugs and guns and have limited support in peasant areas because of force. Calling this bourgeois lies is not going to help you out.

Also, they have a factual record of using inaccurate explosives that kill civilians. This is plainly fucked up.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Off course I support the FARC, only FARC and ELN are trustworthy guarantees on a Socialist liberation in Colombia.

[Luís Henrique]

The problem is that there seems to be no viable journalistic reporting or statistics that seem to back up the claims that FARC is still a viable communist belligerent.

Let's face it, there aren't many journalists willing to do such job.

Anyway, the FARC arguably have never been communist, and viable there have not been for a long time now. This isn't the same as being an armed branch of the drug barons.


The popular line seems to be that many leftist guerillas in South America achieve a capitalist black market outlook by dealing in drugs and guns and have limited support in peasant areas because of force.

Yes, this seems to be the "popular", ie, informed by the bourgeois press, view.


Calling this bourgeois lies is not going to help you out.

Maybe not. Is accepting it as revealed truth going to help us?


Also, they have a factual record of using inaccurate explosives that kill civilians. This is plainly fucked up.

For instance?

Luís Henrique

[Pogue]

For instance?


Human Rights Watch. “More FARC Killings with Gas Cylinder Bombs: Atrocities Target Indigenous Group “ April 25, 2005. Available online (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/15/colomb10496.htm). Accessed September 1, 2006.

[Pogue]

I believe there was also a case of one of their mortars hitting a church which killed 119 civilians.

[BobKKKindle$]

Off course I support the FARC, only FARC and ELN are trustworthy guarantees on a Socialist liberation in Colombia.As a communist, I contend that only the working class can liberate Colombia from capitalism, and that the establishment of a viable socialist society in Colombia can only come about as a result of a broader international revolution, due to the international division of labour, and the prospect of military intervention if revolution is restricted to Colombia or a small number of other countries without the means to defend themselves from the onslaught of imperialism. There is evidence to suggest that FARC-EP commands some degree of popular support - most notably the fact that during peace negotiations between the insurgency and the Colombian government (1998–2002) over 20,000 people migrated to the FARC–EP held Villa Nueva Colombia in one year alone, primarily in order to avoid the death squads of the state - but as communists it is our duty to conduct a class analysis and recognize that FARC-EP's support base consists primarily of the peasantry, whose class interests are distinct from those of the urban proletariat. In this respect FARC-EP's strategy and class orientation can be seen as similar to other Maoists groups which advocate the encirclement of the cities and prolonged guerrilla struggle, whereas Trotskyists have always looked towards the cities and specifically the working class as the sole agent of social and political emancipation.

[Revy]

Yeah, this.

I don't actually support their strategy (which by the way is not focoism or Guevarism, but Protracted Popular War), that I see as conducing to failure, but I would defend them against this kind of slander:



That's what the Colombian State (which in itself can be said to operate more like a drug cartel than anything else, but I digress) says. I have never seen any actual evidence of this.

There are places in the world where you either produce some illegal commodity or you starve (because the so enlightened world market isn't interested in anything else you may produce); some areas of Colombia (some controled by the State, some controled by the FARC) fall into that definition. There is a practical alternative: genocide. You can't be accused of accomplicity with drug trafficking merely because you don't undertake such practical alternative.

Luís Henrique

I said "they appear to operate like a drug cartel".

If I were interested in "slander", I would have just said "they are a drug cartel". The phrasing of what I said is important. From my perspective, that's what they look like. I was opening up the issue to discussion and debate.

I agree with your points about drugs, though.

[JimmyJazz]

We must also remember that Colombia are the only country in Latin America that supports US imperialism. They have allowed USA to build bases in Colombia which poses a great threat to Venezuela.

Peru and Paraguay also do:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/US_military_bases_in_the_world-1.svg

And Ecuador did until recently.

[n0thing]

No. Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries never bring socialism. I wont support any of them.

[New Tet]

I was wondering how many of you on RevLeft support FARC?

I don't support FARC but if Hugo Chavez supports them, I think it's a good thing.

It goes to show that even a most brilliantly organized anarchist rebellion inevitably becomes politicized.

Look at the FMLN, for example.

[Pogue]

I don't support FARC but if Hugo Chavez supports them, I think it's a good thing.

It goes to show that even a most brilliantly organized anarchist rebellion inevitably becomes politicized.

Look at the FMLN, for example.

I don't understand the use of 'anarchist rebellion' here?

[New Tet]

I don't understand the use of 'anarchist rebellion' here?

It implies that some of the most recently formed left-wing political parties in central and south America owe their origin to one or more anarchist enterprises.

The upshot of that is precisely something Marx warned about in the 'Civil War in France': That the anarchist, pressed by urgency and compelled by objective necessity, turns to a political solution whenever required. It was an astute psychological insight into the mind of the chief anarchist of his day, Bakunin, and a brilliant political generalization.

[Comrade B]

They are rapidly abandoning their morals for self preservation, though they are better than the Colombian government, I would not say that I support them.


No. Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries never bring socialism. I wont support any of them.
God, leave it to a libertarian to piss me off.
That is a pretty bold statement on a website where half the visitors are communists, care to actually say... why?
How was Lenin's revolution a failure exactly? Lenin is not responsible for what Stalin did to his system.

[Q]

I do not support terrorist (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) groups (see the link for a very precise definition of the terrorist method).

[manic expression]

I support any group that combats capitalist oppression and defends the interests of the workers. I find that FARC is doing so in Colombia right now, as it has for years and years under the most difficult of circumstances.

By the way, FARC does not take hostages, they hold POW's.

[Pogue]

I support any group that combats capitalist oppression and defends the interests of the workers. I find that FARC is doing so in Colombia right now, as it has for years and years under the most difficult of circumstances.

By the way, FARC does not take hostages, they hold POW's.

Thats something right out of 1984 :lol:

[Red Dreadnought]

"Focoist" theory is antagonical with the only way to Socialism-Communist society: working class strugle.

FARC only represent objectively one fraction of colombian burgessy.

[manic expression]

Thats something right out of 1984 :lol:

You mean like your adherence to Reagan-style anti-communist rhetoric? That's right out of the 1984 that actually happened.

Let me know when you get past the fiction section.

[Pogue]

You mean like your adherence to Reagan-style anti-communist rhetoric? That's right out of the 1984 that actually happened.

Let me know when you get past the fiction section.

links or it didn't happen?

[h9socialist]

Whatever one might say about the FARC, they seem to me far preferable to the pro-corporate, fascist autocracy that runs that country today. Just ask the hundreds of labor union leaders and activists who've been killed in recent decades in Colombia! I don't know if the FARC has anything like a Fidel or a Che, but it shouldn't be too hard to improve on the status quo!;)

[manic expression]

Pogue, clarify what you're asking, your above question (if it is indeed a question) doesn't make any sense.

[n0thing]

God, leave it to a libertarian to piss me off.
That is a pretty bold statement on a website where half the visitors are communists, care to actually say... why?
How was Lenin's revolution a failure exactly? Lenin is not responsible for what Stalin did to his system.
Marxism Leninism has nothing to do with communism. At least not their never-ending "transition" state. You can't have communism and an over-bearing authoritarian state. Communism is by nature anti-statist and libertarian.

Show me one Marxist Leninist revolution that didn't end with state-capitalism.

[RedSonRising]

Since my family is from Colombia, on my many visits I have studied closely both the media perception and the public perception of the FARC. What I see is that the bourgeois-controlled media aggressively exaggerates or sensationalize the ethically questionable acts of the guerrillas, while almost COMPLETELY ignoring the atrocities of the right-wing paramilitaries. Other forms of media besides television, however, have managed to report violent human rights abuses on both sides.

There are still plenty of non-activist revolutionary-minded citizens around, visible not only in things such as the Che Guevara stickers on cars and motorcycles (which may in the end not tell too much about their political character) but the organized anarchist and communist graffiti, with some pro-chavez slogans. Disgust with Uribe and the super-privatization of Colombia's economy is still very present. And of course, the most active of the people who share these sentiments have manifested themselves into several prominent political groups.

The problem is that the FARC have alienated the masses from socialism. Their leaders are most likely striving for revolutionary struggle, but the toll that their methods, such as the taking advantage of the drug trade, kidnapping foreigners and others who report serious abuse and mistreatment, the killing of civilians (whether accidental or on purpose) and military control/violence in the country side has had on Colombia has made their existence more of a cost to the nation's people and working class than any sort of beacon of hope. As was said before, they are abandoning their ideals for the sake of preserving themselves. This is why Chavez has "sympathized" with the movement's ideals and their leaders, but publicly condemned their practices.

Nowadays in Colombia, if you express revolutionary sentiment, you are immediately coupled with the FARC and deemed a terrorist right away, making progress nearly impossible, even through alternate forms of educational media (while i realize this is the media's fault, one cannot ignore that the FARC's often questionable behavior that leads to such an impression). I am not saying revolutionary progress is impossible in Colombia, that is not my opinion, but all in all, the activities of the FARC in the last 25 years have made many Colombians fear leftist activism, live in constant violence, and become even more entrenched in a social system surrounded by cocanomics...while offering little to no real constructive aid to the working class.

So no, I do not support them.

[NecroCommie]

I do not support terrorist (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) groups (see the link for a very precise definition of the terrorist method).
The word and definition of terrorism has lost it's meaning during the past decades. Calling FARC terrorist hardly justifies anything.

As to my personal statement on the topic: Where as I see that FARC could do many things alot better/ alot more socialist, they still are the best realistic alternative for Colombia. So it's kind of a "yes" with me.

[Killfacer]

By the way, FARC does not take hostages, they hold POW's.

Like that woman they had hostage for years, the one released recently? I'm pretty sure she wasn't rambo style singlehandedly taking down FARC.

POW: is an enemy combatant taken and held.

[manic expression]

Like that woman they had hostage for years, the one released recently? I'm pretty sure she wasn't rambo style singlehandedly taking down FARC.

POW: is an enemy combatant taken and held.

FARC is an armed force fighting a war against an imperialist state. "That woman" was Ingrid Betancourt, a member of the Colombian government and a capitalist candidate for the presidency. It's simply incorrect to paint her as some innocent bystander, when in fact she's had her hand in the Colombian imperialist machine for years.

[Killfacer]

FARC is an armed force fighting a war against an imperialist state. "That woman" was Ingrid Betancourt, a member of the Colombian government and a capitalist candidate for the presidency. It's simply incorrect to paint her as some innocent bystander, when in fact she's had her hand in the Colombian imperialist machine for years.

Did i call her a bystander? Sorry but how do you know that everyone FARC take hostage are POWs?

[manic expression]

Did i call her a bystander? Sorry but how do you know that everyone FARC take hostage are POWs?

I felt you implied as much.

You don't take POW's hostage, you capture them in the course of a war. If we agree that FARC is fighting a war (which they are, by any definition), then individuals captured by that force are not hostages, as their capture is through armed conflict. Calling the POW's hostages indirectly validates the bourgeois position that FARC are terrorists and/or common criminals.

[Killfacer]

I felt you implied as much.

You don't take POW's hostage, you capture them in the course of a war. If we agree that FARC is fighting a war (which they are, by any definition), then individuals captured by that force are not hostages, as their capture is through armed conflict. Calling the POW's hostages indirectly validates the bourgeois position that FARC are terrorists and/or common criminals.

So now the way someone is captured defines whether they are hostages or POWs.

How do you know so much about FARC's hostage taking tactics? Friends with the leadership or something?

[manic expression]

So now the way someone is captured defines whether they are hostages or POWs.

Not the actual method in which they're captured necessarily, but the context of the thing. Holding people at gunpoint in a bank is one thing, taking prisoners in a legitimate war is quite another. Calling the latter "hostages" equates the two, which is both incorrect and misleading when it comes to the situation in Colombia.


How do you know so much about FARC's hostage taking tactics? Friends with the leadership or something?

Of course not. However, here, the devil is not in the details, rather the devil is in the definition of the larger circumstances involved. If we define FARC as an armed force engaged in a war instead of a criminal organization (which is what the bourgeoisie classifies them as), then the definition of their prisoners must conform to that viewpoint accordingly.

Tactics mean little in this case. In fact, strategy means little as well. What matters is the identification of the conflict in Colombia as a legitimate war, and the conclusions intrinsic to this. Tactics are the use of forces in combat, but we're looking at the nature of that combat.

[Luís Henrique]

Human Rights Watch. “More FARC Killings with Gas Cylinder Bombs: Atrocities Target Indigenous Group “ April 25, 2005. Available online (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/15/colomb10496.htm). Accessed September 1, 2006.

Directs me towards a page about Burma and the trial of Aund San Suu Kyi, which I suppose is not the intention.

What's the idea? That FARC deliberately kills Colombian Indians? On what rationale?

ETA: Never mind, I found it. Indeed, this is a breach of war rules. It puts the FARC in the same level as the US Army, though not, evidently, in the same scale.

Luís Henrique

[Killfacer]

Not the actual method in which they're captured necessarily, but the context of the thing. Holding people at gunpoint in a bank is one thing, taking prisoners in a legitimate war is quite another. Calling the latter "hostages" equates the two, which is both incorrect and misleading when it comes to the situation in Colombia.



Of course not. However, here, the devil is not in the details, rather the devil is in the definition of the larger circumstances involved. If we define FARC as an armed force engaged in a war instead of a criminal organization (which is what the bourgeoisie classifies them as), then the definition of their prisoners must conform to that viewpoint accordingly.

Tactics mean little in this case. In fact, strategy means little as well. What matters is the identification of the conflict in Colombia as a legitimate war, and the conclusions intrinsic to this. Tactics are the use of forces in combat, but we're looking at the nature of that combat.

Or in other words "i actually just claimed that FARC only take POWs, i have no evidence to prove it but it did fit in nicely with my argument."

Just because you say they are a military force it does not define what kind of prisoners they take.

[Luís Henrique]

So now the way someone is captured defines whether they are hostages or POWs.

How do you know so much about FARC's hostage taking tactics? Friends with the leadership or something?

All of us know of those issues through newspapers and internet blogs.

Luís Henrique

[Killfacer]

All of us know of those issues through newspapers and internet blogs.

Luís Henrique

Glad to see some FARC bloggers are glad to keep their supporters up to date on the struggle.

I don't know what country you are from so i can't comment on the quality of the newspapers in the country you are in. Here in England however, it's fair to say that knowing something because you read it in a newspaper hardly counts.

[Comrade B]

Show me one Marxist Leninist revolution that didn't end with state-capitalism.
because it has not yet been created does not mean that it is impossible.
Stalinism stopped all possible hopes of creating real communist societies during the post-Lenin stage of communism by forcing all newly liberated masses to rely on the Soviet Union too much and then blackmailing them to work for them rather than their people.


Like that woman they had hostage for years, the one released recently? I'm pretty sure she wasn't rambo style singlehandedly taking down FARC.

FARC is an armed force fighting a war against an imperialist state. "That woman" was Ingrid Betancourt, a member of the Colombian government and a capitalist candidate for the presidency. It's simply incorrect to paint her as some innocent bystander, when in fact she's had her hand in the Colombian imperialist machine for years. think of her situation as taking G.W. Bush hostage before he had taken a political position. (by the way, you should look up the stories the other hostages who were with her have about their relationship with her, she sounds like an absolutely darling fellow)

We cannot really hold it against them for holding hostages, were they not to have hostages they would quickly have been destroyed by air, which they stand little chance to fight back against.

This still doesn't mean that I support them though.

[manic expression]

Or in other words "i actually just claimed that FARC only take POWs, i have no evidence to prove it but it did fit in nicely with my argument."

I set up the conditional statement, it's quite clear: If we define FARC as an armed force engaged in a war, then the definition of their prisoners must conform to this classification.

If you're asking me for a link or a piece of evidence that "proves" FARC is in the midst of a war, please articulate as much.


Just because you say they are a military force it does not define what kind of prisoners they take.

First of all, they are a military force, and anyone who denies that is either living in a fantasy world or trying to validate the capitalist government. Secondly, FARC's status as a military force in a legitimate war has a great bearing on the status of their prisoners: if it didn't, there wouldn't be any difference between a bank robber holding bystanders at gunpoint and an army accepting the surrender of enemy forces. Since there is a great difference between the two in many ways, we need to remember this as we look at Colombia. With this in mind, we must again review the conditional statement above.

[Killfacer]

I set up the conditional statement, it's quite clear: If we define FARC as an armed force engaged in a war, then the definition of their prisoners must conform to this classification.

If you're asking me for a link or a piece of evidence that "proves" FARC is in the midst of a war, please articulate as much.



First of all, they are a military force, and anyone who denies that is either living in a fantasy world or trying to validate the capitalist government. Secondly, FARC's status as a military force in a legitimate war has a great bearing on the status of their prisoners: if it didn't, there wouldn't be any difference between a bank robber holding bystanders at gunpoint and an army accepting the surrender of enemy forces. Since there is a great difference between the two in many ways, we need to remember this as we look at Colombia. With this in mind, we must again review the conditional statement above.

Just because FARC are at war it does not mean that all prisoners taken are POW. A prisoner of war is an enemy combatant. There's also the fact that it's not exactly conventional warfare anyway, so comparing it to other conflicts is silly.

[Luís Henrique]

Glad to see some FARC bloggers are glad to keep their supporters up to date on the struggle.

Since you seem not to get it, shut up. Don't post things like "are you friends with the leadership"; that may, if a person lives in certain countries, put them into danger.

Luís Henrique

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

As a communist, I contend that only the working class can liberate Colombia from capitalism, and that the establishment of a viable socialist society in Colombia can only come about as a result of a broader international revolution, due to the international division of labour, and the prospect of military intervention if revolution is restricted to Colombia or a small number of other countries without the means to defend themselves from the onslaught of imperialism. There is evidence to suggest that FARC-EP commands some degree of popular support - most notably the fact that during peace negotiations between the insurgency and the Colombian government (1998–2002) over 20,000 people migrated to the FARC–EP held Villa Nueva Colombia in one year alone, primarily in order to avoid the death squads of the state - but as communists it is our duty to conduct a class analysis and recognize that FARC-EP's support base consists primarily of the peasantry, whose class interests are distinct from those of the urban proletariat. In this respect FARC-EP's strategy and class orientation can be seen as similar to other Maoists groups which advocate the encirclement of the cities and prolonged guerrilla struggle, whereas Trotskyists have always looked towards the cities and specifically the working class as the sole agent of social and political emancipation.
Yes okay, that may be true, but is that a reason not to support them?

[Killfacer]

Since you seem not to get it, shut up. Don't post things like "are you friends with the leadership"; that may, if a person lives in certain countries, put them into danger.

Luís Henrique

Yes i'm sure that in the USA, when someone from England sarcastically asks an american whether they are friends with the FARC leadership is going to put him in serious danger.

What are you on about? I didn't ask you fuck all so you don't appear to be making much sense.

[manic expression]

Just because FARC are at war it does not mean that all prisoners taken are POW. A prisoner of war is an enemy combatant. There's also the fact that it's not exactly conventional warfare anyway, so comparing it to other conflicts is silly.

A prisoner of war is not always an enemy combatant, for example, some civilians are classified as POW's under certain conventions. At any rate, Ingrid Betancourt, as a member of the Colombian imperialist state which was and is prosecuting a war against FARC (and Colombian workers), is clearly part of said war effort and was captured as a consequence of the same.

Whether or not it's conventional warfare is secondary. FARC has a uniform, a chain of command and carries its weapons openly, so it can comfortably be defined as a legitimate armed force.

[n0thing]

I declare war on my neighbours.
I go over there and capture them, they shall be prisoners of war.

[Killfacer]

A prisoner of war is not always an enemy combatant, for example, some civilians are classified as POW's under certain conventions. At any rate, Ingrid Betancourt, as a member of the Colombian imperialist state which was and is prosecuting a war against FARC (and Colombian workers), is clearly part of said war effort and was captured as a consequence of the same.

Whether or not it's conventional warfare is secondary. FARC has a uniform, a chain of command and carries its weapons openly, so it can comfortably be defined as a legitimate armed force.

I don't think the fact that FARC are a "legitmate armed force" means that they can justify all hostages taken, no matter what their involvement with the conflict, then claim them to be POWs.

Essentially you are saying that even if they took a random reported hostage that they would in fact be a POW because FARC are an armed force, legitimate or not.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Every enemy posing a threat to the Revolution in Colombia, wether militarily or by other means, can justly be labelled a POW, even if not actually captuured in armed combat.
Remeber the infamous overviewer of the landowners who was captured by Fidel's troops during the first weeks of the Revolution. He was drunk and going home when they captured him, but was later executed nevertheless because of his crimes and the terrible danger he was to the People.

[manic expression]

I declare war on my neighbours.
I go over there an capture them, they shall be prisoners of war.

a.) If you establish and wear a distinctive uniform, adhere to a functional chain of command and carry your weapons openly, that would be a start. Then, you'd have to engage in armed conflict with another armed force (your neighbors don't count). Then, you'd have to take prisoners in the course of that legitimate war.

So it's a bit more complicated than that, even if we're talking minimums.

b.) If you want to be like FARC, then you'd have to fight only as a last resort, and wholly for the interests of the working class against a murderous capitalist regime. Until then, don't profane the struggles of genuine revolutionaries with your self-gratifying sarcasm.


I don't think the fact that FARC are a "legitmate armed force" means that they can justify all hostages taken, no matter what their involvement with the conflict, then claim them to be POWs.

That's when specific examples come into play, and the case of Betancourt has satisfactorily been shown to support my position.


Essentially you are saying that even if they took a random reported hostage that they would in fact be a POW because FARC are an armed force, legitimate or not.

That's a hypothetical. If you want to make a point along those lines, we need more than a "what-if". After all, if FARC bombed Iraq, they'd be imperialists; the only thing is that they aren't.

[Devrim]

God, leave it to a libertarian to piss me off.
That is a pretty bold statement on a website where half the visitors are communists, care to actually say... why?
How was Lenin's revolution a failure exactly? Lenin is not responsible for what Stalin did to his system.
Marxism-Leninism is generally a term used to mean Maoism. I don't think that it actually has that much to do with Lenin at all.

The October revolution was ultimately a faliure though anyway.

Devrim

[Killfacer]

That's when specific examples come into play, and the case of Betancourt has satisfactorily been shown to support my position.



That's a hypothetical. If you want to make a point along those lines, we need more than a "what-if". After all, if FARC bombed Iraq, they'd be imperialists; the only thing is that they aren't.

You are also being hypothetical because like me, you know very little about who FARC take hostage.

[Gravedigger01]

I would kinda support them because I think most of the 18'000 rebels have pure ideals for a marxist state through fair guerilla combat(as fair as guerilla combat gets)but the leaders are the ones that call for Kidnapping and Assassiations

[manic expression]

You are also being hypothetical because like me, you know very little about who FARC take hostage.

Well, we do know that the one example brought up, Betancourt, supported my position. I'm simply going by the general definition of what a war entails (which is actually biased against revolutionaries for the most part), as well as the only concrete example cited thus far. If you want to add another example, do so.

[Pogue]

manic expression, i asked you to show me where i used reagan-esque rhetoric.

[Madvillainy]

They are not communists fighting for socialism. They are a small anti working class gang who are completely alienated from the working class and whose actions (ie taking hostages and what not) have completely failed to achieve anything except make them look even worse.

[Killfacer]

Well, we do know that the one example brought up, Betancourt, supported my position. I'm simply going by the general definition of what a war entails (which is actually biased against revolutionaries for the most part), as well as the only concrete example cited thus far. If you want to add another example, do so.

Well your the one making baseless, unsubstantiated claimes that all FARC hostages are in fact POWs. I'm not about to spend ages looking for examples because i can't be fucked. I just thought that you're claim seemed wild and a little extravagant.

[manic expression]

Not only did you attempt to belittle the defense of a revolutionary organization, but you posted a report by HRW, a known opponent of revolutionary movements such as the Cuban Revolution. It was a common practice among Cold War (and contemporary) anti-communists to cite false or exaggerated accounts of "red terror". As a side-note, in such situations, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between bourgeois and anarchist criticisms of revolutionary organizations.

[Killfacer]

Not only did you attempt to belittle the defense of a revolutionary organization, but you posted a report by HRW, a known opponent of revolutionary movements such as the Cuban Revolution. It was a common practice among Cold War (and contemporary) anti-communists to cite false or exaggerated accounts of "red terror". As a side-note, in such situations, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between bourgeois and anarchist criticisms of revolutionary organizations.

Belittle a what now? I've read it twice and it still doesn't seem relevant.

[Pogue]

Not only did you attempt to belittle the defense of a revolutionary organization, but you posted a report by HRW, a known opponent of revolutionary movements such as the Cuban Revolution. It was a common practice among Cold War (and contemporary) anti-communists to cite false or exaggerated accounts of "red terror". As a side-note, in such situations, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between bourgeois and anarchist criticisms of revolutionary organizations.

To be honest, right, I don't think there is a single organisation I could use as an source, because no matter what one I used, you will just say it is bourgeois propoganda, as happens every single time. I don't think using that source is evidence of me using reagen-esque language, and also, sometimes we mgiht criticise certain things that the bourgeoisie also criticise, but the point is what language we use and the reasons we criticise them. Obviously we do not criticise things for being 'too communist', we criticise them for reasons you'd expect form any genuine anarchist. This is like me accusing you of being bourgeoisie for opposing Hitler because Winston Churchill, a Conservative, did the same.

I dno't think the claims are exaggerated. That report mostly deals with the use of mortars which have been known to kill many civilians because they are very inaccurate, and especially dangerous in the urban zones where the FARC were directing them. Other sources would give the same evidence, but doubtless they are 'bourgeois' too. Maybe I should quote FARC's own statistics on how many civilians they kill? I am sure those would be objective. This reminds me of the Cuba Truth activists I met who accused me of listening to ruling class propoganda before showing em that all their sources come from the Cuban state. As if Cuba's ruling class doesn't employ the use of ideolgoy and propoganda too. I think your response shows a level of naivity and a desire to hide from the truth and reality of what Stalinist guerilla groups get up too, especially when it is increasingly clear they are not going to win.

[manic expression]

Well your the one making baseless, unsubstantiated claimes that all FARC hostages are in fact POWs. I'm not about to spend ages looking for examples because i can't be fucked. I just thought that you're claim seemed wild and a little extravagant.

Those claims are neither baseless nor unsubstantiated, seeing as the example you brought up proved my position.

It's fine if you think what I said was extreme or extravagant. Telling me I'm wrong without looking for counterexamples is the issue.


To be honest, right, I don't think there is a single organisation I could use as an source, because no matter what one I used, you will just say it is bourgeois propoganda, as happens every single time. I don't think using that source is evidence of me using reagen-esque language, and also, sometimes we mgiht criticise certain things that the bourgeoisie also criticise, but the point is what language we use and the reasons we criticise them. Obviously we do not criticise things for being 'too communist', we criticise them for reasons you'd expect form any genuine anarchist. This is like me accusing you of being bourgeoisie for opposing Hitler because Winston Churchill, a Conservative, did the same.

The Granma would've been OK with me. Anyway, HRW does slander the Cuban Revolution with some frequency, playing into the wishes of the imperialists; it's not unfair for me to point this out in an issue as controversial as this one.

When anarchist criticisms seem to dove-tail with bourgeois criticisms, that is something to notice. Marxist opposition to Hitler bore heavy, immediately visible distinctions to bourgeois opposition to Hitler; can you say the same for anarchism and FARC?

Never did I say that anarchists aren't a distinctive ideology with many different facets and theoretical foundations. I did not state anarchists are bourgeois. What I did say, and what I think is an appropriate observation, is that in some situations, the same rhetorical devices employed by capitalists are oftentimes employed by anarchists.


I dno't think the claims are exaggerated. That report mostly deals with the use of mortars which have been known to kill many civilians because they are very inaccurate, and especially dangerous in the urban zones where the FARC were directing them. Other sources would give the same evidence, but doubtless they are 'bourgeois' too. Maybe I should quote FARC's own statistics on how many civilians they kill? I am sure those would be objective.

Mortars can be inaccurate, just as the people firing them are prone to error, especially when they're in the stress of combat. Does this make FARC un-revolutionary? Does it make them anti-worker? No, it just underlines the difficulty they are facing in liberating Colombia from the grip of imperialism. The real problem is when known anti-revolutionary groups are used to invalidate the struggle of FARC and the Colombian workers. Not all sources have a long history of slandering revolutionaries, just so you know.


This reminds me of the Cuba Truth activists I met who accused me of listening to ruling class propoganda before showing em that all their sources come from the Cuban state. As if Cuba's ruling class doesn't employ the use of ideolgoy and propoganda too. I think your response shows a level of naivity and a desire to hide from the truth and reality of what Stalinist guerilla groups get up too, especially when it is increasingly clear they are not going to win.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: in the eyes of the all-seeing anarchists, the US and Cuba are the same! Imperialist media is no different from working-class media! The expropriation of the Cuban capitalists in the late 50's and early 60's matters not!

This is pure garbage. Those Cuba Truth activists are more than justified in using Cuban sources, because Cuban sources bring the working-class perspective to all issues; Cuban sources have been shown, time and again, to be reputable and progressive. Even ranking members of the World Bank conceded that Cuba's reports on living standards were valid.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm

In conclusion, the truth supports revolutionary politics. That's all I have to say about that.

[gorillafuck]

This reminds me of the Cuba Truth activists I met who accused me of listening to ruling class propoganda before showing em that all their sources come from the Cuban state.
The United Nations, Unicef, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook are all part of the Cuban state?

[Luís Henrique]

They are not communists fighting for socialism. They are a small anti working class gang who are completely alienated from the working class and whose actions (ie taking hostages and what not) have completely failed to achieve anything except make them look even worse.

18,000 people are a small gang?

Frankly, the may be many things, but small...?

Luís Henrique

[Pogue]

The United Nations, Unicef, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook are all part of the Cuban state?

Those were not the sources they used.

[gorillafuck]

http://cubatruth.info/

Yes, they are. Look at the sources under the statistics in each category.

[Pogue]

The Granma would've been OK with me. Anyway, HRW does slander the Cuban Revolution with some frequency, playing into the wishes of the imperialists; it's not unfair for me to point this out in an issue as controversial as this one.

When anarchist criticisms seem to dove-tail with bourgeois criticisms, that is something to notice. Marxist opposition to Hitler bore heavy, immediately visible distinctions to bourgeois opposition to Hitler; can you say the same for anarchism and FARC?

Never did I say that anarchists aren't a distinctive ideology with many different facets and theoretical foundations. I did not state anarchists are bourgeois. What I did say, and what I think is an appropriate observation, is that in some situations, the same rhetorical devices employed by capitalists are oftentimes employed by anarchists.


I don't see how thats relevant, though. I am sure liberal or even conservative capitalist media may find gulags abhorent. So do anarchists. So we would both criticise them because we find gulags abhorent. I don't see how this is shocking, or controversial. That was just one example. I am sure there are many things both anarchists and liberals would find abhorent. That doesn't mean anarchism is any less of an ideological strand.


This is exactly what I'm talking about: in the eyes of the all-seeing anarchists, the US and Cuba are the same! Imperialist media is no different from working-class media! The expropriation of the Cuban capitalists in the late 50's and early 60's matters not!

This is pure garbage. Those Cuba Truth activists are more than justified in using Cuban sources, because Cuban sources bring the working-class perspective to all issues; Cuban sources have been shown, time and again, to be reputable and progressive. Even ranking members of the World Bank conceded that Cuba's reports on living standards were valid.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm)

In conclusion, the truth supports revolutionary politics. That's all I have to say about that.

Perhaps not all seeing, but our pro-working class, more balanced perspective has historically proven to be more valuable than the positions of statists, who desperately apologise for bourgeois states because they claim to be socialist.

I wasn't debating the living standards in Cuba. I think Cuba's social programmes have been amazing and I agree with even alot of 'bourgeois' sources who say they are a model for third world countries. If you really interested, the debate I had with the Cuba truth activists was over the political establishment of Cuba, which I believe is beurecratic, corrupt and representative of a class system in Cuba. It seemed the only source they could provide to the contrary were the claims of the Cuban state, but because Cuba is 'anti-imperialist' of course this state is one whose reports we can trust. :rolleyes:

[Madvillainy]

18,000 people are a small gang?

Frankly, the may be many things, but small...?

Luís Henrique

For a country with a population of around 45 million people, I don't think 18 thousand people is huge. But you're right they aren't small.

Although I think saying Farc have 18,000 members is being quite generous.

[manic expression]

I don't see how thats relevant, though. I am sure liberal or even conservative capitalist media may find gulags abhorent. So do anarchists. So we would both criticise them because we find gulags abhorent. I don't see how this is shocking, or controversial. That was just one example. I am sure there are many things both anarchists and liberals would find abhorent. That doesn't mean anarchism is any less of an ideological strand.

Bringing up something like the gulags is what I'm talking about: the gulag system was a complex institution that went through many changes over its existence. It wasn't always an instrument of the purges, as it existed long before 1935, and actually existed before 1917 IIRC.

And while I object to the excessive nature of the purges (which breeched socialist legality), to ignore the developments outside of the USSR would be as naive as ignoring the developments within the USSR. Were the purges a-ok? No, of course they weren't. Does that make the Soviet Union any less socialist, any less revolutionary, any less progressive? No, of course it doesn't. You look at shortcomings and in turn conjure up the absurd conclusion that the USSR itself was abhorrent (even as history made it forcefully clear that those same shortcomings became important in the survival of socialism, the USSR and many entire peoples of Europe). You want to equate all states and bureaucracies with the purges, but this is nothing but a fallacy: the purges were an event of a certain state in a certain period with a certain set of circumstances. You are trying to stretch a single occurence into a phenomenon, a trend, an instrinsic characteristic; in this lies the basic lack of sophistication in your arguments.

And I already said anarchism is its own ideology. It's just that that ideology parrots bourgeois criticisms at certain points.


Perhaps not all seeing, but our pro-working class, more balanced perspective has historically proven to be more valuable than the positions of statists, who desperately apologise for bourgeois states because they claim to be socialist.Your "pro-working class, more balanced perspective" agrees with the imperialists more than you can admit. Quit making excuses for dove-tailing with bourgeois commentators and look in the mirror: if you oppose revolutionary organizations, that makes you opposed to revolution. If you think that's "historically...more valuable", be my guest.


I wasn't debating the living standards in Cuba. I think Cuba's social programmes have been amazing and I agree with even alot of 'bourgeois' sources who say they are a model for third world countries. If you really interested, the debate I had with the Cuba truth activists was over the political establishment of Cuba, which I believe is beurecratic, corrupt and representative of a class system in Cuba. It seemed the only source they could provide to the contrary were the claims of the Cuban state, but because Cuba is 'anti-imperialist' of course this state is one whose reports we can trust. :rolleyes:Except plenty of other groups, none of which are aligned with the Cuban state, agree with the claims of the revolutionary working-class media. So no, it's not the only source, not by a long shot, and even if it was, it would be true nevertheless.

On your distaste on the Cuban state, that's to be expected. As I've said before, all modern revolutions require modern states, and anyone who opposes this stands against the progress of the workers. Of course, you do need to look after your moral purity first and foremost, so it's natural that you'd take such a position.

[Luís Henrique]

For a country with a population of around 45 million people, I don't think 18 thousand people is huge. But you're right they aren't small.

Although I think saying Farc have 18,000 members is being quite generous.

That's the figure Human Rights Watch gives for them. If it is generous, I don't know.

Luís Henrique

[Revy]

Here's some info from a book on Latin American history I have:



"The Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) emerged in 1966. The FARC had its roots in communist-led peasant agitation dating back to the 1920s, and unlike the ELN, it had a largely agrarian focus. From experience in these struggles, the FARC's preeminent leader, Manuel Marulanda, had acquired the nickname of “Tirofijo” (Sureshot). In reaction to attacks from government forces, the FARC leadership broke with the Communist Party and became an independent revolutionary organization with its own military and political doctrines. The FARC also formed tactical alliances with narco-traffickers, and by the 1990s it was the most powerful guerrilla movement in Colombia."

"The FARC acquired economic leverage through its alliances with narco-traffickers, and it moved directly into the cultivation of coca, marijuana, and opium poppies. According to official estimates, the FARC expanded from 3600 insurgents in 1986 to about 7000 in 1995 and as many as 15,000 (or even 20,000) by 2000. During the same period, the ELN grew from only 800 insurgents in the mid-1980s to 5000 by 2000. "

[Radical]

"It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action" - Fidel Castro

[Q]

The word and definition of terrorism has lost it's meaning during the past decades. Calling FARC terrorist hardly justifies anything.
I linked to the actual definition I used (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm), which is very precise and full of meaning.


As to my personal statement on the topic: Where as I see that FARC could do many things alot better/ alot more socialist, they still are the best realistic alternative for Colombia. So it's kind of a "yes" with me.
Surprise surprise.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

They are not communists fighting for socialism. They are a small anti working class gang who are completely alienated from the working class and whose actions (ie taking hostages and what not) have completely failed to achieve anything except make them look even worse.
So what do you suggest for the People of Colombia?
Just accepting the terrible exploitation they face today because FARC is theoretically not "entirely pure enough"?

[New Tet]

So what do you suggest for the People of Colombia?
Just accepting the terrible exploitation they face today because FARC is theoretically not "entirely pure enough"?

If the only problem with FARC were a question of its theoretical purity, how much better would it be for the Colombian people!

The problem with FARC is not their ideological purity or lack thereof but their practice of taking lives and hostages to advance their political agendas.

[manic expression]

New Tet, if FARC's political agenda is in the interests of the Colombian workers, why should it be opposed by progressives?

And please read my posts on FARC's "hostages" if you can.

[New Tet]

New Tet, if FARC's political agenda is in the interests of the Colombian workers, why should it be opposed by progressives?

And please read my posts on FARC's "hostages" if you can.


On what do you base the assumption that "FARC's political agenda is in the interests of the Colombian workers"?

[RedScare]

I'd take over FARC over AUC and the government.

[manic expression]

On what do you base the assumption that "FARC's political agenda is in the interests of the Colombian workers"?

Its revolutionary program, its opposition to the murderous Colombian bourgeoisie, its ties with revolutionaries throughout Latin America, among other things.

[PRC-UTE]

FARC tried to stop being a "gang" as some have called them, and launch a political party. For that they were slaughtered. Their candidate for president was shot down in broad daylight at an airport. To the Colombian bourgeoisie and its pet rightist paramilitaries, revolutionaries are the same whether they're shooting back or not. They will happily shoot communists who put down guns jsut as they do with unarmed trade unionists.

I'm not saying their strategy is necessarily correct, but what else are they supposed to do?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

As a side-note, in such situations, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between bourgeois and anarchist criticisms of revolutionary organizations.

Then maybe it's time for some self-reflection on the part of the statists..

[khad]

FARC tried to stop being a "gang" as some have called them, and launch a political party. For that they were slaughtered. Their candidate for president was shot down in broad daylight at an airport. To the Colombian bourgeoisie and its pet rightist paramilitaries, revolutionaries are the same whether they're shooting back or not. They will happily shoot communists who put down guns jsut as they do with unarmed trade unionists.

I'm not saying their strategy is necessarily correct, but what else are they supposed to do?
I prefer them to the Uribe-ite alternative. I voted yes.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So what do you suggest for the People of Colombia?
Just accepting the terrible exploitation they face today because FARC is theoretically not "entirely pure enough"?

You think an inefficient armed struggle financed by drugs and terror in the Colombian mountains is the only possible path towards socialism?

...

Colombia would probably resemble Venezuela and Ecuador if it wasn't for FARC, probably even more progressive.

[OneNamedNameLess]

I'm not saying their strategy is necessarily correct, but what else are they supposed to do?

Stop doing mad shit.

If they wisely decided to give up their pointless struggle years ago when they should have, then the prospect of a political party would be quite a reality. The other day they killed two police on patrol in a rural area. Why? What is this doing for socialism? It has been going on for over 40 years or something and resulted in more negative perceptions of socialism. Killing a few soldiers and police every so often isn't glorious and there are more ways of liberating the Colombian working class. They don't enjoy the support of the masses in Columbia and are stuck in the hills with no way of preaching socialism to the working class anyway minus a few peasants. The FARC are losing, and have been losig for a long time now. Time to drop the AK's and ditch the ridiculous looking wellies and try something different.

[Bright Banana Beard]

They been a legal party before, but many of them actually got killed and the government is happy with the result. There is even students who was forming leftist union will receive blacklist from the university and the police. So they can't really do anything that much beside continuing the struggle. If anything, the prospect of being a legal political party will actually failed and become infiltrated by the Colombia's secret police. In short word, they can't do much anything different. If they back down, the Colombian army inevitable will attack them full.

[Olka]

I do support their struggle, but I see no point in continuing fighting since the war has been going for over thirty years now.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

If the only problem with FARC were a question of its theoretical purity, how much better would it be for the Colombian people!

The problem with FARC is not their ideological purity or lack thereof but their practice of taking lives and hostages to advance their political agendas.
Oh yes, now I see.
It would have been better if FARC had just kindly asked the Colombian government to abdicate, step down and give the rule of the nation to the Workers. That would work...:rolleyes:

[Radical]

Am I the only one here who doesn't consider "kidnapping rich capitalists" terrorism?

FARC are a belligerent Revolutionary Army. I think to those Communists here calling FARC Terrorists, need to re-evaluate their political views.

[BabylonHoruv]

They are rapidly abandoning their morals for self preservation, though they are better than the Colombian government, I would not say that I support them.


God, leave it to a libertarian to piss me off.
That is a pretty bold statement on a website where half the visitors are communists, care to actually say... why?
How was Lenin's revolution a failure exactly? Lenin is not responsible for what Stalin did to his system.


Considering he put Stalin in the position he was in. I would say that yes he is. However, and more importantly, an authoritarian approach is going to lead to a Stalinist system, it has done so repeatedly.

That being said I am more for FARC than against them. I don't see what is wrong with taxing drug lords, most of the people who responded to the poll on drugs said they were in favor of them being legal.

[Das war einmal]

From what I hear, they treat their prisoners like shit and there are rumors of mistreatment and torture of civilians. I am in support of an armed movement and certainly within the context of the situation in Colombia, but the rebels should offer an example. Like the Vietcong did.

Note that I cant tell a lot about this, since the messages about the FARC are really biased and unclear.

[Revy]

Am I the only one here who doesn't consider "kidnapping rich capitalists" terrorism?

FARC are a belligerent Revolutionary Army. I think to those Communists here calling FARC Terrorists, need to re-evaluate their political views.

Q was only speaking of "terrorism" in the same sense Trotsky offered, not the common sense of violence against civilians.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Note that I cant tell a lot about this, since the messages about the FARC are really biased and unclear.

From FARC commander Raul Reyes who is now dead btw:

Q:Why does the FARC continue to use home-made mortars in attacks against police stations when these weapons repeatedly cause civilian casualties?
Reyes: There are two things here. One thing is the utilization of mortars against the public forces, which is the end for which they are used. The FARC does not have heavy armaments, the FARC as you know has still not been recognized as a belligerent force and cannot obtain the armaments that it should possess as an army. So it develops a lot of homemade armaments to use against the public forces: the police, the army, DAS, navy, and air force. Many times those who operate these apparatuses, the mortars or other weapons, commit errors. They aim at the police station but they strike the neighboring house. That has occurred a few times. It’s lamentable, of course; there is not a single justification for it. But they are human failings, caused by the nervousness of whoever is launching it. Or it is a failure in the structure of the mortar. This is a failure that has occurred and we are trying to correct it so that these mistakes that affect the population won’t happen.

Why does the FARC use anti-personnel landmines when they cause civilian casualties?
Reyes: The FARC uses mines against the public forces. The mine fields are used against the public forces, never against the civilian population, never. There are cases when a road is suddenly mined and a civilian might not know they are there and through some carelessness of the guards or himself he fails to avoid it. Sadly, those cases have always occurred. But the norm is that one must try and ensure that there are no civilian casualties.

Depends on the individual I suppose.

I strongly suggest everyone read this. It's a really good interview:

http://colombiajournal.org/colombia259.htm

Check out the site too if you wish to know more about the FARC. The guy is actually quite sympathetic.

[New Tet]

Oh yes, now I see.
It would have been better if FARC had just kindly asked the Colombian government to abdicate, step down and give the rule of the nation to the Workers. That would work...:rolleyes:

Believe me, if they could get the government to 'abdicate', it certainly wouldn't be to give the rule to the workers. Experience has taught us that it just doesn't work that way any more (if it ever did!).

A revolution in Colombia must come, but it won't come through FARC. Can't you see the obvious historical fact that every revolution in Colombia since the death of Bolivar has turned into a bloody civil war?

And who keeps it that way? Certainly not FARC; not all by their little, home-made mortar selves, I dare say.

Orwell was right when he invented Emanuel Golstein's vision of the world.

[metalero]

Kidnapping civilians, even for political purposes, is just wrong and alienates FARC from getting support from the working class. Having said that, it's a whole different issue holding policemen and soldiers captured in battle (even if the buorgeois media keep saying they are "kidnapped") in order to exchange them for imprisoned FARC members held in the infamous colombian prisons, which living conditions are no better than the jungle. I don't support FARC, since I consider only a mass democratic movement who vindicates the traditionaly excluded and impoverished colombian workers and peasants can bring true change in colombia. FARC will cease to exist, the day the colombian state carries basic democratic reforms, such as land reform, and political freedoms truly exist, which is what FARC explicitly want anyway, and that isn't a revolutionary program, rather something a reformist or social democracy can bring without so much useless blood. However, i do justify their existance as a resistance to the state terror unleashed at peasants, union leaders, leftist activists for so many years. The colombian conflict is really complicated, not a black and white subject. Workers must stand for a political and peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict that address the material conditions that gave way to the insurgency, and develop a true alternative working class political organization that represents their class interests.

[Radical]

Kidnapping civilians, even for political purposes, is just wrong and alienates FARC from getting support from the working class. Having said that, it's a whole different issue holding policemen and soldiers captured in battle (even if the buorgeois media keep saying they are "kidnapped") in order to exchange them for imprisoned FARC members held in the infamous colombian prisons, which living conditions are no better than the jungle. I don't support FARC, since I consider only a mass democratic movement who vindicates the traditionaly excluded and impoverished colombian workers and peasants can bring true change in colombia. FARC will cease to exist, the day the colombian state carries basic democratic reforms, such as land reform, and political freedoms truly exist, which is what FARC explicitly want anyway, and that isn't a revolutionary program, rather something a reformist or social democracy can bring without so much useless blood. However, i do justify their existance as a resistance to the state terror unleashed at peasants, union leaders, leftist activists for so many years. The colombian conflict is really complicated, not a black and white subject. Workers must stand for a political and peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict that address the material conditions that gave way to the insurgency, and develop a true alternative working class political organization that represents their class interests.

Education. Educate the people that kidnapping rich capitalists and holding them for ransom is justified and currently neccessary to support the Revolution.

I dont know about anybody else here. But I dont consider kidnapping rich oppressive capitalists a bad thing. It's wholey justified.

Just because somebody isen't carrying a gun, does NOT mean they are innocent.

[Communist]

>>FARC commander Raul Reyes who is now dead btw<<

Killed in Ecuador in March 2008 while negotiating for the humanitarian exchange of hostages, as part of a massacre that Colombia undertook with US intelligence.
It set back Latin American relations considerably as well as illuminated the need for intensified FARC fightback efforts.
I voted yes, I critically support FARC.

[Korchagin]

FARC must be supported because they are undermining imperialism in the region and the anti-popular Uribe regime in Colombia. Progressive forces must help to ensure that FARC gets the sympathy of workers of the entire world.

[Charles Xavier]

Kidnapping civilians, even for political purposes, is just wrong and alienates FARC from getting support from the working class. Having said that, it's a whole different issue holding policemen and soldiers captured in battle (even if the buorgeois media keep saying they are "kidnapped") in order to exchange them for imprisoned FARC members held in the infamous colombian prisons, which living conditions are no better than the jungle. I don't support FARC, since I consider only a mass democratic movement who vindicates the traditionaly excluded and impoverished colombian workers and peasants can bring true change in colombia. FARC will cease to exist, the day the colombian state carries basic democratic reforms, such as land reform, and political freedoms truly exist, which is what FARC explicitly want anyway, and that isn't a revolutionary program, rather something a reformist or social democracy can bring without so much useless blood. However, i do justify their existance as a resistance to the state terror unleashed at peasants, union leaders, leftist activists for so many years. The colombian conflict is really complicated, not a black and white subject. Workers must stand for a political and peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict that address the material conditions that gave way to the insurgency, and develop a true alternative working class political organization that represents their class interests.

If you do not pay your taxes are you not jailed? If you do not pay your taxes to the revolutionary army what should they do? give you a high five?

And the FARC-EP are trying and have always tried for a peaceful solution to the conflict, do not forget that this the continuation of a coup government that was installed after the assassination of Gaitan. THe FARC-EP tried a peaceful political solution to the conflict and Union Patriotica was formed followed by the death of 8000 of its members. The Communist Party of Colombia which split from the FARC-EP has had 10,000 of its members killed over the past 20 years. What peaceful solution is possible when you are killed for being a communist, a trade unionist or even to protest.

[OneNamedNameLess]

>>FARC commander Raul Reyes who is now dead btw<<

Killed in Ecuador in March 2008 while negotiating for the humanitarian exchange of hostages, as part of a massacre that Colombia undertook with US intelligence.
It set back Latin American relations considerably as well as illuminated the need for intensified FARC fightback efforts.
I voted yes, I critically support FARC.

And? I was just noting that he was killed. Read his interview if you have such an interest in the man.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm sure their intentions for Columbia are good. However, their methods are inappropriate.