Red Army Faction

[CntStrike]

What do you guys think of the Red Army Faction and their terrorist methods? In many ways they resemble the narodnik assassinations which Bolsheviks severely criticised and disassociated themselves from.
Do you believe that political terrorism should ever be used in a distorted vanguard of the proletariat (this is how the red army faction saw themselves) or does it hinder the movement much more than help it?

[Dowshy]

It hinders, and I can't think of a single instance in which it has helped. It invites repression and gives the ruling class an excuse to criminalize resistance, which they are always looking to do anyway.

[CntStrike]

Ok this is merely a question and not exposition of my views - I'm arguing the devil's advocate to enquire into others' views.

Did not the Narodnik terrorists produce a situation of conspiracy which allowed the Bolsheviks to fill their ranks with true revolutionaries rather than liberal reformists - thus adding strength to the party and enabling these bolshevik revolutionaries to carry out the October revolution.

And thus if the RAF had not attacked civilians in their hijacking and some of their bombing, could they not also have paved the way for a conspiratorial revolutionary group?

Thus could terrorism (not aimed at civilians- merely politicians) ever act as a means to muster the vanguard. Of course I'm not suggesting that these terrorists themselves should form the revolutionary government and once again i'm playing devil's advocate before I get misquoted as actually supporting terrorism

[spiltteeth]

The police at the time said thanks to the RAF their budget went up FOUR TIMES! They even got tanks!
Its like the weather underground in America, most people saw them as terrorists without even looking into their message because of their violence.

[communard resolution]

The police at the time said thanks to the RAF their budget went up FOUR TIMES! They even got tanks!

Yes, that's exactly what the RAF wanted. Their strategy was to "expose the fascism" that lured beneath the system's democratic surface. With an increasingly oppressive state apparatus, the masses would recognise the system for what it really was, and then... and then... um... they weren't really sure what exactly would happen then.

The state apparatus did grow increasingly oppressive. But the masses failed to side with the RAF because:


Its like the weather underground in America, most people saw them as terrorists without even looking into their message because of their violenceBut I feel we're straying slightly off topic. The OP wants to discuss whether terrorism can have a positive effect in any situation at all.

[CntStrike]

But I feel we're straying slightly off topic. The OP wants to discuss whether terrorism can have a positive effect in any situation at all.

Not at all; I've never heard of the weather underground in America... and would certainly appreciate some links or books which could help me.

I've just been reading some of Lenin's works (edited by Zizek) who approaches the idea that "the first revolution and the succeeding period of counter revolution (1907 -1914) laid bare the very essence of the tsarist monarchy, brought it to its "utmost limit", exposed all the rottenness and infamy, the cynicism and corruption of the tsar's clique...it exposed all the brutality of the Romanov family ... without the revolution of 1905-07 and the counter revolution, there could not have been a clear self-determination of all the classes of the russian people and of the nations inhabiting Russia, that determination of the relation of these classes to each other and to the tsarist monarchy, which manifested itself during the eight days of the February Revolution of 1917" (taken from Lenin's 'letter from Afar')

of course Lenin is not dealing with terrorism but rather a prior revolution aiding the latter one. Thus as a previous poster mentioned, the RAF were exposing the fascism of West German capitalism (forgive the misquote but I believe that is the essence of what you said). Following Lenin's thesis, could terrorist action used by groups such as the RAF perhaps act as a modern equivalent of the 1905 revolution (In Lenin's analysis)... a method of revealing capitalist brutality with the aim of uniting masses behind a later revolution.

Perhaps the RAF's failure was not its use of terrorist action but rather its inability to use counter propaganda ('counter' in opposing the newspapers slant of unjust terrorism) to justify what they were actually doing. In this respect would it not have been better if they had targeted more thoroughly the capitalist media to prevent their message being distorted into mere terrorism?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Thus as a previous poster mentioned, the RAF were exposing the fascism of West German capitalism (forgive the misquote but I believe that is the essence of what you said).
No. They aimed to expose the fascism of West German capitalism; they didn't realise that the working class are far more sympathetic to fascistic tactics if they can be presented as protection against terrorism. All they really did was build support for fascism.


Perhaps the RAF's failure was not its use of terrorist action but rather its inability to use counter propaganda ('counter' in opposing the newspapers slant of unjust terrorism) to justify what they were actually doing. In this respect would it not have been better if they had targeted more thoroughly the capitalist media to prevent their message being distorted into mere terrorism?The capitalist media are never going to support armed struggle.

[CntStrike]

The capitalist media are never going to support armed struggle.


Who suggested they would?

since when does 'target' mean 'lets hope the capitalist media make us look good'?

[spiltteeth]

Here's a GREAT Doc on the Weather Underground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7GSff4fIA

And heres one on the RAF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5XoNFt8Uh0

The 2 best books Baader-Meinhof: The Inside Story of the R.A.F. (http://www.amazon.com/Baader-Meinhof-Inside-Story-R-F/dp/0195372751/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250213280&sr=1-4) by Stefan Aust and Anthea Bell
and Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (http://www.amazon.com/Outlaws-America-Underground-Politics-Solidarity/dp/1904859410/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250213331&sr=1-1) by Dan Berger
or on both : Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies (http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-War-Home-Underground-Revolutionary/dp/0520241193/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250213331&sr=1-2) by Jeremy Varon


However, terrorist acts almost always increase fascism, demoralize the revolutionary group.
Remember - the medium is the message.
It doesn't matter what the message is, if its carried out there terrorist violence it will never get the approval of the mas sass.

In the Weathermen doc its also interesting to see how the group gradually loses there soul, they become angry, bitter, and even full of hatred for the common man in some cases.

I think both groups did more harm and worked to discredit the left.
Now, Lenin was very opposed to terrorism - his brother executed for just that- as a strategy.
However, to reveal a counties dark fascist side to the masses I would suggest studying MLK and the Civil rights movement.

[ellipsis]

I personally think that there are more effective urban guerrilla tactics than terrorist-type bombings, although when the RAF used that EFP sachel bomb to kill that banker, that was badass.

[bcbm]

If you want a better case study in left-wing terrorism, I'd examine the Red Brigades and various other armed, militant groupings that existed in Italy in the late 1970's. They had far more support, both in terms of a base and general sympathy, than the RAF or Weather Underground ever did. Which isn't to say that their strategy was much better (indeed, I would argue the switch to armed cells was precisely what killed any revolutionary momentum), but if you're going to learn anything useful it will be from those movements. Books worth looking into, off the top of my head, are "Strike one to educate one hundred" and "Never again without a rifle."

[leochaos]

Hi,
there are a few books on the weather U; if I am not not wrong a good one is called something like
Fire in the praire
If you want I can try to find the authors.I am not sure if you can get it on the net(free).
There are also some documentaries about the WU.
Personally I considr them an interesting story,but not much more.
An author I suggest to everyone is Marvin Harris(the guy who 'invented" structural anthropology.Sort of marxist,but one of the problem with Marx is that during his time anthropology was at its very beginnings.He could not get things right if he based his ideas on wrong data.Unless he was god...
I am not sure how the whole debate about primitive communism ended,but at one point it seemed that it had never existed....if so,things are...messy.
I was trying to locate something about Zizek,but "on violence" has some good points,and you are on topic.
About the different western "terrorist" groups at some level they have are all interesting.Basically comrades who thought they could do something.
But please consider that the RAF was indeed a minute group, and so the WU.
More important were the Red Brigades who had some number and also a decent number of workers.Plus an "area" around them(difficult to calculate;some researcher put the number at hundred of thousands).
If it is still there ,a guy put up in english the translation of a book about the BR.Just search on the web and you should find it.I think that he also wanted to put something on the RAF.
Going back to Harris he had his own take on the whole "revolt" of the 60ties: basically not a revolutionary movement.With some elements of reactionarism...
He articulated it pretty well and I sort of agree with that idea.But you have to consider that he probably was exposed to the american expression of the 60ties.
In europe there were many young workers(or studets coming from a proletarian family).It made a lot of difference.
Good luck in your search and if you need titles/names post a note.I hate the web,too old to get it, and I not good at searching on it.But,I may have find the website with the books
Ciao and good luck.

[Q]

Terrorist tactics do nothing but hurt the workers movement, the RAF being a splendid case in point.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Who suggested they would?

since when does 'target' mean 'lets hope the capitalist media make us look good'?
Oh, you meant target as in attack? But they did do that. One of the RAF's first bomb attacks was against the headquarters of the Springer press; they injured 17 workers and made themselves look really bad. They also put a lot of counter propaganda out, but they were still operating in an atmosphere where most people didn't see the need for militant struggle, so they were doomed to fail.

[CntStrike]

Thanks spiltteeth, those two documentaries were incredibly insightful...particularly the weather underground. They never taught that in my history class :)

and thanks for the other book suggestions as well bcbm and leochaos.

Its all well and good stating that it hurts the workers movements, which I fully agree with, but does anyone have any statistics as to correlations between leftist terrorist group membership and the wider working class movement etc. just to see statistically how the terrorist movement can harm the class struggle.

Its certainly fascinating with both weather underground and RAF how they turned on each other in the final days. Did either have a democratic leadership in a manner similar to Bolsheviks prior to the rise of Stalinism? I still want to explore theoretically the idea of whether violent conspiracy could ever form a vanguard - a claim I believe Baader made of his group.

[Invincible Summer]

Although I understand that such "terrorist" tactics will always be spun by the ruling classes to damage the left, you all have to admit that the whole idea of "taking the fight to them" is almost tempting. In a time when the left seems to be making little progress and/or more injustice is created, the frustration and anger almost seems to want to naturally manifest itself in militancy.

[Pogue]

Although I understand that such "terrorist" tactics will always be spun by the ruling classes to damage the left, you all have to admit that the whole idea of "taking the fight to them" is almost tempting. In a time when the left seems to be making little progress and/or more injustice is created, the frustration and anger almost seems to want to naturally manifest itself in militancy.

I don't think terroism represents 'taking the fight to them', I think working class action such as strikes and occupations represents this.

[brigadista]

the tupamaros were admired by the BM group -their situation was different but their actions led to similar circumstances in Uruguay as in Germany-state crackdown

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think the whole idea of terrorism is confused. When many people these days think of terrorism they think of bombing civilian targets or a small group shooting cops etc. Thats not the definition of terrorism which has being around since the French revolution and is used to describe any tactics used with the intention of intimidating a group of people , I don't think saying "no intimidating people nevar" is particularity useful since they may be a time in which say threatening bosses who use goons squads with assassination is helpful. However armed conflict between communists and the state is not helpful unless it is for self defense or with the backing of the working class otherwise its futile.

Recently though Terrorism has being used as a "i dont like you" term by states which enables them to deny anyone aiding these groups as well as providing justification to attack them as well as an excuse to openly flaunt the rules of war (admittedly its unlikely that these are ever followed for any reason other then PR and an excuse to hang other bourgeoisie leaders). Of course we will be labeled as terrorists the moment we use one iota of force and I will be more then happy to be a terroist if it helps however for obvious PR reasons I dont think we should have a "Terrorism now campaign".

[Forward Union]

What do you guys think of the Red Army Faction and their terrorist methods? In many ways they resemble the narodnik assassinations which Bolsheviks severely criticised and disassociated themselves from.
Do you believe that political terrorism should ever be used in a distorted vanguard of the proletariat (this is how the red army faction saw themselves) or does it hinder the movement much more than help it?

As they were Stalinists with a vested interest in weakening the political stability of west Germany, their tactics were quite 'appropriate'. Terrorist tactis do those things quite well, and while it alienates public support and ultimately fails to produce revolution (or the strength of the working class), neither of those things would have been necessary for achieving their political targets.

But I am not a Stalinist, and I don't like in 1970s Germany.

[red cat]

Well... let us think of it this way: people who risk their lives in taking part in individual or group assassinations (only of class enemies, not civilians) do in fact want to make the revolution; only their tactics are flawed. But then, formulating and applying Marxism creatively, suiting it to one's own country is not that easy, and the revolutionaries are expected to make lots of mistakes in the begining. But this may often give rise to strong revolutionary movements later, as the revolutionaries learn through failures. But when such a developed movement comes into existence, the former one, if it does not change already, might give the ruling classes an excuse to identify the latter as a terrorist movement and finish it off. It is then that such actions should be opposed, not before that.

[spiltteeth]

Apostles and Agitators: Italy's Marxist Revolutionary Tradition

by Richard Drake (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Drake/e/B001H9PWM4/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1) is a really great book on the red brigades.

Yea, Zizek believes in terror (in the Kantian sense -he usually adds) and has written about it when discussing Robespierre.

The weather Underground were Maoist.