Colombia rebel groups Farc and ELN agree 'to unite'

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8417595.stm)


Two of Colombia's biggest rebel groups have announced they intend to unite to fight the country's security forces.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) said they were "on our way towards working for unity".

Farc and the smaller ELN have deep ideological differences and have fought each other in some regions.

Together they could be a significantly greater danger to the state, says the BBC's Jeremy McDermott.

The surprise announcement was made on a website known for its links with the Farc.

"Our only enemy is North American Imperialism and its oligarchic lackeys," the statement said, a reference to the US which supplies aid and training to the Colombian security forces.

The head of the Colombian armed forces, Gen Freddy Padilla, was dismissive of the news.

"This alliance is impossible," he said. "They dispute territory to control drug-trafficking and have killed one another in the south (of the departments of) Bolivar and Arauca."

Farc has in the past tried to absorb ELN, although the smaller group proved to be stronger than expected, beating back the Farc in several areas.

New path

The Farc is Colombia's oldest and largest left-wing rebel group. It was once thought to have some 16,000 fighters, but reports suggest it now has about 9,000. The group is rurally-based and finances itself through drug trafficking.

The ELN was formed in 1965 by intellectuals inspired by the Cuban revolution and liberation theology. It is regarded as being more ideological than the Farc and has succeeded in recruiting in urban areas. It is thought to have some 1,500 fighters.

It is not clear to what extent the two groups can put aside their differences.

"Now they have something in common, that they have been seriously diminished by Uribe," Mauricio Romero, a political analyst, told Reuters.

But he sees their union as largely symbolic.

The Farc has suffered several defeats at the hands of conservative President Alvaro Uribe's security forces.

Now under new leadership, it is steering a new path, and allying itself with former enemies to try to recover lost ground, our correspondent says.

Hopefully this will be a further challenge to the Colombian state.

[Sendo]

They should focus on common ground in leftism and revolution and agitate for their own secs after the revolution.

Well, I suppose they could still propagandize and organize, yet stay *militarily* united. An alliance is what they just might need. I don't see how it could hurt, there's a war going on. And the FARC shoudnt worry about betrayal too much. This gulf in ideology is nothing compared to the KMT/PLA alliance against the Japanese.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I can only applaud this. Hopefully they overthrow the fascist government soon.

[cyu]

Farc and the smaller ELN have deep ideological differences... Farc has in the past tried to absorb ELN, although the smaller group proved to be stronger than expected, beating back the Farc in several areas... It is not clear to what extent the two groups can put aside their differences.


Pro-capitalist media organizations want to emphasize how different and antagonistic they are, in order to prevent them from cooperating enough to take down capitalism.


Together they could be a significantly greater danger to the state

Pro-capitalists are a significant danger to the state - or at least the average person living in it - especially a government like Colombia that kills more union members than any other nation in the world.


They dispute territory to control drug-trafficking

Everyone in Colombia uses "drug-trafficking" to try to discredit their opponents. The current regime is widely known to cooperate with right-wing paramilitary squads funded by drug-traffickers. From http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/24/pentagon-bases-in-colombia

Colombian President Uribe has himself been linked to the paramilitaries. A U.S. intelligence document from 1991 lists then-Senator Uribe as a "close personal friend of Pablo Escobar," the notorious drug lord killed in 1993.

Drugs are in every aspect of Colombian politics - why? Simply because it's a more profitable export to wealthy nations that can afford it. When you've got great disparities in wealth, caused by capitalism, then more and more poor people will be convinced to trade the output of their labor for the paper, numbers on computers, and shiny rocks of the rich.


they have been seriously diminished by Uribe... The Farc has suffered several defeats at the hands of conservative President Alvaro Uribe's security forces.

Pro-capitalist media organizations try their hardest to discourage any revolutionary activity. They want leftists to believe they have lost even before they start fighting back.

...of course, this isn't to say I agree with all (or even most) of FARC and ELN's tactics. That was just an analysis of the article.

[KurtFF8]

Well it was the BBC, you can't expect it to be "pro-FARC" or anything along those lines. Nonetheless it can give some idea of what's going on in countries like Columbia.

[scarletghoul]

Awesome news.

[cyu]

Well it was the BBC, you can't expect it to be "pro-FARC" or anything along those lines. Nonetheless it can give some idea of what's going on in countries like Columbia.


Oh I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't have posted that - I'm glad you did because developments like this are important to know... just thought I'd add some context, that's all =]

[Robocommie]

I've heard some accusations of the use of child soldiers by FARC, attacks on civilian targets and stuff. I'm generally inclined to be really supportive of FARC but I want to ask if there's any reason to give credence to these accusations?

I'm not as bothered by the drug cartel shit, I mean it's a huge Colombian export, it's going to touch all levels of the economy and society there, and besides, money to buy guns and supplies have to come from somewhere. It's just this other stuff that bothers me.

[IsItJustMe]

I've heard some accusations of the use of child soldiers by FARC, attacks on civilian targets and stuff. I'm generally inclined to be really supportive of FARC but I want to ask if there's any reason to give credence to these accusations?

I don't know about that, but I know some of the government backed paramilitaries have apparently practiced cannibalism, as well developing interrogation techniques involving chain saws.

It's rough stuff. If the FARC has crossed the line from time to time, I wouldn't doubt it. But on the whole, they seem to be trying to wage a principled, honorable struggle in a very difficult situation. The government? Not so much.


I'm not as bothered by the drug cartel shit, I mean it's a huge Colombian export, it's going to touch all levels of the economy and society there, and besides, money to buy guns and supplies have to come from somewhere. It's just this other stuff that bothers me.

Shit, the government is far more involved in drugs than the FARC. At one point in the 1990s, Alvaro Uribe, the current president, was listed by the US authorities as one of the world's top 100 drug barons.

[Robocommie]

I don't know about that, but I know some of the government backed paramilitaries have apparently practiced cannibalism, as well developing interrogation techniques involving chain saws.

It's rough stuff. If the FARC has crossed the line from time to time, I wouldn't doubt it. But on the whole, they seem to be trying to wage a principled, honorable struggle in a very difficult situation. The government? Not so much.

That sounds reasonable. I'd also be willing to believe that a lot of abuses are the work of certain less scrupulous commanders, as opposed to the organization as a whole.

But what's this about the right wingers and cannibalism?



Shit, the government is far more involved in drugs than the FARC. At one point in the 1990s, Alvaro Uribe, the current president, was listed by the US authorities as one of the world's top 100 drug barons.

I'd buy that, too. I hear, for example, Hamid Karzai's family makes a shitload off the opium industry in Afghanistan. But, you know. Bedfellows.

[IsItJustMe]

But what's this about the right wingers and cannibalism?

If you will google "Hollman Morris cannibalism" you will get some references to it...

The paramilitaries in Colombia use a great number of really horror terror tactics... Murder, of course, but rape and torture as well, naturally... And also, it seems, cannibalism.

[RedSonRising]

I've heard some accusations of the use of child soldiers by FARC, attacks on civilian targets and stuff. I'm generally inclined to be really supportive of FARC but I want to ask if there's any reason to give credence to these accusations?

I'm not as bothered by the drug cartel shit, I mean it's a huge Colombian export, it's going to touch all levels of the economy and society there, and besides, money to buy guns and supplies have to come from somewhere. It's just this other stuff that bothers me.

http://www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/informes/tematicos/bojaya.pdf

Here's a detailed report on just one event that outlines the accusations that the FARC have received:

"According to the official UN investigation report, in the morning of May 2nd the AUC paramilitaries had established positions around the church, using the buildings and the cement wall around the church yard for protection. The FARC took up positions to the north (in Barrio Pueblo Nuevo), and began launching gas cylinder bombs (pipetas) toward the paramilitary positions, with two landing nearby but the third going through the roof of the church and exploding on the altar.


The explosion caused approximately 119 dead and 98 wounded, though the UN was not able to verify exact numbers. A large number of the dead and wounded were children.
The UN investigation found the FARC in violation of several principles of international humanitarian law, including an indiscriminate attack causing unnecessary civilian casualties, failure to distinguish between civilian and combatant, failure to take efforts to protect civilians from avoidable harm, and attacks against cultural property. Prohibitions against these acts are found in Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Articles 4, 13, and 16 of Additional Protocol II. The UN also considered the FARC responsible for the forced displacement generated as a consequence of the attack on the church, placing the act in violation of Article 17 of Protocol II.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojay%C3%A1_massacre#cite_note-UNreport-1)
The UN also found the AUC in violation of various aspects of international humanitarian law, including using civilians as human shields, failing to protect civilians from the effects of their military operations, and for causing massive forced displacement of civilian populations in the region due to their acts, threats and combat operations in the area. Given reports of theft by the AUC of goods, equipment and vehicles belonging to local residents, the UN also found the AUC guilty of pillage (a violation of Article 17 of Protocol II).

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojay%C3%A1_massacre#cite_note-UNreport-1)
The UNHCHR also found that the Colombian government failed to act in order to prevent the massive human suffering resulting from the events in Bojaya - suffering that was predicted and of which the government was explicitly warned beforehand."

The Colombian State is a piece of shit, the Paramilitaries are their partners in atrocities, and the FARC unfortunately do not do enough to actually advance the education and organization of the proletariat or the peasants effectively, and so these violent and questionable "means" lead to no meaningful "end" to even justify them with. My father and his family, who were a lower middle class family struggling amidst the polarization of income distribution in Colombia during the 60's and 70's, explained to me the alienating approach which the FARC and their supporters took. Various car bombs and riots at universities prompted police to immediately tear gas his and other schools continuously, leaving students with abruptly interrupted and stalled educations in a situation where jobs were scarce and alternatives pointed nowhere. These working and middle class universities, which should have been hot-spots for constructive popularization, were exploited by these "agitators" for recognition in ways that hurt the very people the FARC claimed to be struggling for. This is just one personal example of how the proletariat felt they were largely disconnected with this movement after a certain point, and demonstrates why when I speak to working class Colombians today, I never hear the FARC mentioned as a vehicle for class liberation, despite anarchist/marxist tendencies among some of the poor. Their monopoly on the popular concept of Revolutionary Socialism in the country has also made it much more difficult (and even dangerous) for different efforts to enable the masses to gain footing.

Today the drug problem is a complicated issue and something that hurts Colombia a lot, specifically due to legitimized reactionary violence, which is perpetuated by the encouragement of such exports. As a tool used by imperialists and suffered by underprivileged urban citizens around the world, I don't think it's exactly compatible with the socialist approach to a more humane society.

I am in no way a supporter of the government that oppresses my people. I believe that revolutionary violence and opposition to oppressive states is justified when taking measures that secure the advancement of the interests of the proletariat in their seizure of the ruling economic and political institutions, but not when their unwillingly and painfully felt expenses are trivialized by the left as a "necessary evil" for costly and unsuccessful attempts at smashing a State that has only grown more boldly and shamelessly openly violent in their oppression of labor with each kidnapped politician, revealed cocaine export, and massacred civilian that comes to light through international medial.

[manic expression]

This is great news, my best wishes to the Colombian workers and peasants in their struggle against fascism.

On a related note, it's funny to hear Colombian fascists talk about how FARC is "on the run", "being diminished" and what not. The fact is that the Colombian army massacres villages, dresses them up in FARC uniforms and declares yet another victory against communist narco-terrorism. It's just PR from a bunch of thugs. It vaguely reminds of memoirs from Vietnam, when US helicopter pilots would just fire their missiles randomly across the Vietnam-Laos border, fly back to base and report they killed x number of Vietcong...everyone knew the "body counts" were complete bullsh*t but they didn't care because the army's PR machine wanted to give encouraging numbers.

[cyu]

The fact is that the Colombian army massacres villages, dresses them up in FARC uniforms and declares yet another victory against communist narco-terrorism. It's just PR from a bunch of thugs. It vaguely reminds of memoirs from Vietnam, when US helicopter pilots would just fire their missiles randomly across the Vietnam-Laos border, fly back to base and report they killed x number of Vietcong...everyone knew the "body counts" were complete bullsh*t but they didn't care because the army's PR machine wanted to give encouraging numbers.

Indeed. Excerpts from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8038399.stm

poor, young men had been recruited from the slums of Bogota, promised well-paying jobs in the province of Norte de Santander, then murdered in cold blood and presented by the army as having been killed in combat.

soldiers were sent to the city of Medellin to round up homeless people from the streets who were later presented by the army as rebels killed in combat.

[Revy]

Here's what Modern Latin America says about their membership levels in 2000 (maybe they haven't really declined as they're said to have?)

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.

Whereas, this article says that FARC is now at 9,000 and ELN is now at 1,500.

[h0m0revolutionary]

When you speak of a defeat for such a "fascist" (Wakizashi's words - not mine) government as the one in Columbia, you must address the agency of that defeat.

Which brings me to my point..

We're meant to be internationalists. FARC nationalism - socialism-in-one-country, their role in the Patriotic Front and their complicity in the heroin and cocaine trade in Columbia reveal the trainwreck position the FARC and ELN are in. They are not a wrking class orginisaton, their demands for "socialism" are at most a moderate expression against neoliberalism.

But let me guess, anyone who shoots against Alvaro Velez is an ally right, regardless of how anti-thesis to a working class organization they may be.

[manic expression]

When you speak of a defeat for such a "fascist" (Wakizashi's words - not mine) government as the one in Columbia, you must address the agency of that defeat.

Which brings me to my point..

We're meant to be internationalists. FARC nationalism - socialism-in-one-country, their role in the Patriotic Front and their complicity in the heroin and cocaine trade in Columbia reveal the trainwreck position the FARC and ELN are in. They are not a wrking class orginisaton, their demands for "socialism" are at most a moderate expression against neoliberalism.

Let me address your points in turn:

FARC's nationalism is much like the nationalism of the Cuban revolutionaries: socialist in character. Nationalism, in general, is not inherently right-wing, and is oftentimes progressive when it entails the assertion of working-class voices against suppression (Malcolm X is a good example of this type of nationalism). In the context of anti-imperialism, nationalism becomes all the more progressive.

Claims of FARC's involvement in narcotics is essentially baseless. From everything I've seen, they allow peasants to grow the crops but that's about it, and that's basically the platform that got Evo Morales elected in Bolivia. The paramilitaries and their bosses are the real narcotics lords.

The Patriotic Front was an attempt by communists and their allies to work for progress through the ballot box, which was met with repression and murder. FARC wasn't officially part of the UP IIRC, but many of their supporters and comrades were, and many of them wound up dead. The admirable efforts of the UP serve as a justification and vindication of FARC's struggle.

FARC aren't even in power, how can they be guilty of promoting "socialism in one country" anyway? And regardless, disagreement on socialism in one country is hardly a reason to condemn an organization that serves as a beacon of hope and dignity for the workers and peasants of Colombia.

FARC's continual sacrifices against the fascism of Uribe and his cronies represents a dedication to socialist revolution that leaves one speechless. They have fought for decades against capitalism, and they remain defiant against it in the face of unimaginable opposition. You'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that is more dedicated to revolution than FARC.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Let me address your points in turn:

FARC's nationalism is much like the nationalism of the Cuban revolutionaries: socialist in character. Nationalism, in general, is not inherently right-wing, and is oftentimes progressive when it entails the assertion of working-class voices against suppression (Malcolm X is a good example of this type of nationalism). In the context of anti-imperialism, nationalism becomes all the more progressive.
As I'm sure you know, internationalists think that nationalism is always reactionary, and at best can only stand for the creation of a new ruling class.


FARC aren't even in power, how can they be guilty of promoting "socialism in one country" anyway? And regardless, disagreement on socialism in one country is hardly a reason to condemn an organization that serves as a beacon of hope and dignity for the workers and peasants of Colombia.

It is entirely a reason if you think that it means their politics ultimately come down to support for state capitalism. Obama is a "beacon of hope and dignity" for many poor black people in America, it doesn't stop us condemning him.

[manic expression]

As I'm sure you know, internationalists think that nationalism is always reactionary, and at best can only stand for the creation of a new ruling class.

So anyone who claims that they support the progress of their nation is reactionary? Are you condemning every individual who pushes their nation along the train tracks of history to be reactionary simply because they are conscious of their task?


It is entirely a reason if you think that it means their politics ultimately come down to support for state capitalism. Obama is a "beacon of hope and dignity" for many poor black people in America, it doesn't stop us condemning him.

Yeah, right, FARC is just a regular Barack Obama. You sure got me there. :rolleyes:

Define state capitalism for me and explain how FARC falls in that category. Until then, your argument is nothing but a solitary opinion.

[Andropov]

As I'm sure you know, internationalists think that nationalism is always reactionary, and at best can only stand for the creation of a new ruling class.
"The nationalism of the workers belonging to an oppressor nation binds them to their rulers and only does harm to themselves, while the nationalism of an oppressed nation can lead them to fight back against those rulers." - Karl Marx

[IsItJustMe]

For me, you learn a lot about a person or tendency by their reaction to real world struggles. When push comes to shove, and there are workers and peasants standing up to imperialism, do they side with the workers and the peasants? Or do they declare "a plague on both your houses?"

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So anyone who claims that they support the progress of their nation is reactionary? Are you condemning every individual who pushes their nation along the train tracks of history to be reactionary simply because they are conscious of their task?

That's a meaningless formula. What does it actually mean. I support the progress of my class; the working class has no country.


Define state capitalism for me and explain how FARC falls in that category. Until then, your argument is nothing but a solitary opinion.
This is clearly going to turn into a pointless tendency war, but here goes. A system where the state, rather than the old bourgeoisie, manages the accumulation of capital. See here for a fuller discussion (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech313). Anarchists, left communists, and the better Trotskyists all see the Soviet Union, "communist" China, and their satellite states as being state capitalist. The FARC has never broken from this tradition, so why should we expect their attempts at creating a socialist society to turn out any differently?

[manic expression]

That's a meaningless formula. What does it actually mean. I support the progress of my class; the working class has no country.

If you support the progress of the working class, then you support the progress of your nation, whether or not you admit it. On the subject of the workers having no country, yes, they do. They have at least Cuba (from the Manifesto):

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

The Cuban working class has since constituted itself the nation, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. That's what being a revolutionary means.


This is clearly going to turn into a pointless tendency war, but here goes. A system where the state, rather than the old bourgeoisie, manages the accumulation of capital. See here for a fuller discussion (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech313). Anarchists, left communists, and the better Trotskyists all see the Soviet Union, "communist" China, and their satellite states as being state capitalist. The FARC has never broken from this tradition, so why should we expect their attempts at creating a socialist society to turn out any differently?
So the Paris Commune was capitalist? After all, the Communard state oversaw production just as much as the Soviet state. Also, how can capital really exist in that sense when there is no large-scale market for labor or material (and thus no generalized commodity production)?

Further, how do you regard FARC as being guilty of this when they've never "managed the accumulation of capital" of Colombia? Sins of the father or something like that?

[IsItJustMe]

The tendency war here is fairly simple:

The Colombian workers and peasants are rising up against a brutal capitalist regime. Some people on this board are on their side. Others are a little too pure.

[Ol' Dirty]

"No Batman and Robin, can't tell between the cops and the robbers, they['re] both partners, they[re] all heartless, with no conscience." -Respiration, Blackstar and Common.

Both the Comumbian govt. and the FARC/ELN are gangsters, and neither are doing anything to promote anything positive. I don't understand why people can support garbage like FARC. It's like saying that Stalin was a good opponent for the west. He may have been an alternative to liberal capitalism, but he wasn't a good alternative, just another thug.

[manic expression]

Your Blackstar feat Common quote is about a capitalist city, my Common quote is about the promise of socialist revolution in Latin America:

She untangled the chains and escaped the pain
How she broke out of prison I could never explain
And even to this day they try to get to her
but she's free with political asylum in Cuba.

Beautiful stuff, huh?

Anyway, why do you think FARC are gangsters? Like I said, they don't push drugs like the warlords in bed with Uribe, they have shown great respect for civilians under the most trying of circumstances. It's no surprise that civilians are actually migrating toward FARC-controlled areas:

Prior the establishment of the DMZ during the 1998-2002 peace talks, the population was only 100,000. By the time the Colombian government invaded the region and ended the peace negotiations, there were roughly 740,000 Colombians who had migrated to the guerrilla-held territory. ("Elusive Peace: Struggling Against the Logic of Violence," NACLA Report of the Americas 34, no. 2, 2000: 32-37)

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8767

Remember, Mackalash, the imperialists will do anything, tell any lie, spread any rumor to undermine the work of revolutionaries.

[IsItJustMe]

"No Batman and Robin, can't tell between the cops and the robbers, they['re] both partners, they[re] all heartless, with no conscience." -Respiration, Blackstar and Common.

Both the Comumbian govt. and the FARC/ELN are gangsters, and neither are doing anything to promote anything positive. I don't understand why people can support garbage like FARC. It's like saying that Stalin was a good opponent for the west. He may have been an alternative to liberal capitalism, but he wasn't a good alternative, just another thug.

How on earth could a bunch of gangsters wage a forty year war against imperialism? How on earth could a bunch of gangsters stand up to all the jets, rockets, tanks and bombs of the world's largest military power for four long decades?

[Sasha]

How on earth could a bunch of gangsters wage a forty year war against imperialism? How on earth could a bunch of gangsters stand up to all the jets, rockets, tanks and bombs of the world's largest military power for four long decades?

by being just another side of the same fucking medal?
you wanna say that the mexican drug cartels are an progresive force? the crips and the bloods? the KKK? the sate capitalist USSR during the cold war?
offcourse there are grey area's but in the end being able to stand up against the US goverment might be a lot less about being revolutionary and a lot more off being capitalist/reactionary eveil themself.

[IsItJustMe]

by being just another side of the same fucking medal?

That's the kind of shit that people think when they don't really think it through.

The other side of the same medal would be that the FARC was another enormous military power with trillions of dollars and all the latest technology at its disposal.

The FARC is not that.

If the FARC were the same thing, it would be the same thing in the way that a house cat is the same thing as a tiger. And the fight would not go for forty years.

So, now that we've gotten that out of the way...


you wanna say that the mexican drug cartels are an progresive force? the crips and the bloods? the KKK?You want to say that any one of these has been fighting a forty year long war against a U.S. backed government?


the sate capitalist USSR during the cold war?All I know is that when South Africa invaded Angola, it was Soviet tanks that threw them out.


offcourse there are grey area's but in the end being able to stand up against the US goverment might be a lot less about being revolutionary and a lot more off being capitalist/reactionary eveil themself."capitalist/reactionary eveil"

Yeah. That's the source of their power: Evil. Satan helps them stand up to the United States.

For fuck's sake.

[Ol' Dirty]

Just because they call themselves socialists doesn't mean that they're worth supporting. The Shining Path in Peru was ruthless, and there have been numerous reports of unprovoked violence against innocent people by the FARC. The Naxalites say that they're trying to liberatre Indians, but they've killed hundreds, maybe thousands of dalit and adivasi peasants to get provisions... and other things. The FARC are gangsters because they intimidate and coerce the people of Columbia into complicity instead of working for something better with them, which is precisely what the Columbian govt. has done in the past. The Zapatistas are fighting for socialism from below, while FARC is just justifying its murders with old Leninist tripe. Both sides are practicing ruthless gangsterism, indiscriminately killing the people they are ostensbly trying to protect. Deeds over words.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The Zapatistas are fighting for socialism from belowThey are probably more isolated in the forests than the FARC is. Plus they haven't been under attack by a US backed government for the better part of half a decade so it's simply unfair to compare them both as if they exist on the same plane.

I won't bother with discussing "socialism from below" (since "from above" and "from below" are pretty faulty dichotomies in my honest opinion) but this fight from "below" doesn't make them better or justified in taking up arms against the government--even if they are more "user friendly". If you get what I'm saying.

edit: I don't want to derail this thread and start talking about the Zapatistas but I'm just trying to make a simple point that; you can dislike FARC all you want but when you call them gangsters or say that they intimidate people you could easily say the same thing's about the Zapatistas if you didn't already give them a pass as true revolutionary socialists, as opposed to following "old Leninist tripe".

[Sasha]

That's the kind of shit that people think when they don't really think it through.

The other side of the same medal would be that the FARC was another enormous military power with trillions of dollars and all the latest technology at its disposal.

The FARC is not that.

If the FARC were the same thing, it would be the same thing in the way that a house cat is the same thing as a tiger. And the fight would not go for forty years.

So, now that we've gotten that out of the way...


ever heard about asymmetrical warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare)? the mudjahdeen/taliban and the iranian theocracy didnt even need to fight 40 years they just kicked the imperialist out of their country (hell, thats how the fucking US came about in the first place, rebels kicking some imperialist UK ass) that doesnt mean that we should cheerleader for the taliban/mullahs/US....

[Sasha]

They are probably more isolated in the forests than the FARC is. Plus they haven't been under attack by a US backed government for the better part of half a decade so it's simply unfair to compare them both as if they exist on the same plane.

dont know about that, i think its hell of a lot more easy for me to visit or read info aboit the EZLN than about the FARC. And the EZLN have been under constant threath of an US backed goverment ever since they emerged (admititly later than the farc but so what).
this can have all kinds of explanations where we can debate on but i think your statement is fals.

[IsItJustMe]

ever heard about asymmetrical warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare)? the mudjahdeen/taliban

The Mujahideen/Taliban had massive foreign support. It's not really talked about, but it's true... They had pretty good technology and an almost unlimited supply of money. And the Soviets never quite had the stomach for genocide that we have, either.

It also had support from the reactionary classes in Afghanistan... And, of course, it still does.


and the iranian theocracy

The Iranian theocracy never fought the U.S. Unless there was a war I have forgotten?


didnt even need to fight 40 years they just kicked the imperialist out of their country (hell, thats how the fucking US came about in the first place, rebels kicking some imperialist UK ass) that doesnt mean that we should cheerleader for the taliban/mullahs/US....

Frankly, I don't have any problem cheer-leading anti-imperialists, even if I don't agree with them about everything.

But the larger point is this: An army has to have broader support than just the army if it is going to win. The FARC is not supported by the capitalists in Colombia. Its support is more or less entirely from workers and peasants.

[manic expression]

Just because they call themselves socialists doesn't mean that they're worth supporting. The Shining Path in Peru was ruthless, and there have been numerous reports of unprovoked violence against innocent people by the FARC. The Naxalites say that they're trying to liberatre Indians, but they've killed hundreds, maybe thousands of dalit and adivasi peasants to get provisions... and other things. The FARC are gangsters because they intimidate and coerce the people of Columbia into complicity instead of working for something better with them, which is precisely what the Columbian govt. has done in the past. The Zapatistas are fighting for socialism from below, while FARC is just justifying its murders with old Leninist tripe. Both sides are practicing ruthless gangsterism, indiscriminately killing the people they are ostensbly trying to protect. Deeds over words.

The endorsement of the Cuban revolutionaries would lend quite a bit of validity to FARC's claim. Just ask Assata Shakur about that.

Listen, I don't know much about the Naxalites, so I won't pursue that comparison. However, if you read that link I showed you (which cites its claims from reliable sources), you'll see that FARC is not intimidating or coercing the people of Colombia at all. Much to the contrary, FARC is defending the interests of workers and peasants against fascists.

Deeds over words, indeed. Please read the link I posted, you'll see that FARC's deeds are their greatest witnesses.

[IsItJustMe]

dont know about that, i think its hell of a lot more easy for me to visit or read info aboit the EZLN than about the FARC. And the EZLN have been under constant threath of an US backed goverment ever since they emerged (admititly later than the farc but so what).
this can have all kinds of explanations where we can debate on but i think your statement is fals.

The EZLN has suffered nowhere near the level of violence that the FARC has suffered. The military campaigns against the EZLN have been tiny compared to the campaigns against the FARC.

Also, I can't help thinking the Zapatistas would be absolutely horrified to hear themselves used as an argument against supporting their sisters and brothers in Colombia.

[manic expression]

IsItJustMe and mykittyhasaboner are both right, the EZLN has not faced even a fraction of the opposition that FARC faces on a weekly basis. It's actually a laughable comparison, not even close by even the most warped standard.

[IsItJustMe]

I would like to make one more point here which I think is very important and which I think far too often gets left out of this discussion:

The FARC and the ELN both are interested in pursuing a negotiated settlement to the conflict. Neither one is of the opinion that the war in Colombia can be ended militarily. The government, however, is not interested in negotiations. The government is interested in a military solution. That, in itself, puts the government on a much lower plain than the guerrillas.

[Sasha]

The Mujahideen/Taliban had massive foreign support. It's not really talked about, but it's true... They had pretty good technology and an almost unlimited supply of money. And the Soviets never quite had the stomach for genocide that we have, either.

i never said they didnt, i just tried to explain that what i know of the farc (very litle), doesnt make me an unconditional cheerleader.


The Iranian theocracy never fought the U.S. Unless there was a war I have forgotten?the sjah was an CIA sockpuppet




Frankly, I don't have any problem cheer-leading anti-imperialists, even if I don't agree with them about everything.i do, i dont care about wheter A is more imperialist than B, i care about wheter A is worse for the "proletariat" than B. and in the case of the FARC the jury is still out as far as i'm conserend.


But the larger point is this: An army has to have broader support than just the army if it is going to win. The FARC is not supported by the capitalists in Colombia. Its support is more or less entirely from workers and peasants.could be, could not be, i dont know, thats my point.

[IsItJustMe]

the sjah was an CIA sockpuppet

Well, yes... But it's not quite the same thing, is it?

There was a very widespread revolution that toppled the shah, not limited by any means to the religious types. There was not a religious based guerrilla war against him. There was not forty years of bombing the shit out of the rebels.


i do, i dont care about wheter A is more imperialist than B, i care about wheter A is worse for the "proletariat" than B. and in the case of the FARC the jury is still out as far as i'm conserend.

could be, could not be, i dont know, thats my point.

Well, I hope you're being honest about that... But more than that, I hope you'll look into it. Because if you do I think you're going to find out pretty quickly that the capitalists in Colombia are lined up against the FARC more or less to a pig.

If you read Spanish, you could start by reading the Colombian press.

In the United States, we have two major parties that represent the capitalists. In the United States, like in Colombia, the capitalists control the press. So you can see some press outlets that side more with one party than the other, and in any case both parties get their main points across in the press...

In Colombia, there is more or less no pro-FARC press, except for the alternative media types. If a section of the capitalists really supported them, you wouldn't expect that, would you?

The EZLN has done a truly stupendous job of public relations. Partly that's a matter of how they've conducted themselves, but it's probably more a matter of the conditions they face. Anyway, the result is that most people in the U.S. haven't had their heads filled with lies about them. The lies are out there... But somehow they have not gotten the same play that the lies against the FARC have gotten.

It makes it easier to support the EZLN by a wide measure. But in the end, it's the same struggle.

[Homo Songun]

The main problem is that the FARC are drug dealers! They are just nationalists who want to kick out the yankees!!!! they should be fighting for the International Proletariat instead!!!!!!! I know this because I have a magical autonomist pony that craps rainbow stew!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mykittyhasaboner]

dont know about that, i think its hell of a lot more easy for me to visit or read info aboit the EZLN than about the FARC. That is absolutely true, and I never disputed that. I said they were "more user friendly". They have an actual website and actually can connect with the rest of the world in a somewhat normal manner--the FARC simply don't have this luxury.


And the EZLN have been under constant threath of an US backed goverment ever since they emerged (admititly later than the farc but so what).Well it's not just "so what", I think it means a lot actually. The FARC have a much longer and more brutal history than the EZLN, which is partially the reason why FARC cannot be judged using the same terms or conditions as the EZLN. Of course the EZLN are under extreme threat as well, but they haven't been fighting a protracted war for like 40 years, facing a much larger multitude of enemies than the Zapatistas have to worry about in southern Mexico.



this can have all kinds of explanations where we can debate on but i think your statement is fals.Fair enough. I apprecieate honest debating.



The main problem is that the FARC are drug dealers! They are just nationalists who want to kick out the yankees!!!! they should be fighting for the International Proletariat instead!!!!!!! I know this because I have a magical autonomist pony that craps rainbow stew!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was hardly necessary or called for.

[Andropov]

ever heard about asymmetrical warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare)? the mudjahdeen/taliban and the iranian theocracy didnt even need to fight 40 years they just kicked the imperialist out of their country (hell, thats how the fucking US came about in the first place, rebels kicking some imperialist UK ass) that doesnt mean that we should cheerleader for the taliban/mullahs/US....
What I find disconcerting about the ultra left around here is the complete lack of analysis of progressiveness.
Its just pie in the sky stuff, complete lack of realistic analysis of the material context.
It seems like its either a sponateous working class Revolution with an Anarchist consciousness or nothing?
It just smacks of naivety, immaturity and lazy politics.
A cop out not to apply a conscious Marxist outlook to differing contexts.

[Saorsa]

The Naxalites say that they're trying to liberatre Indians, but they've killed hundreds, maybe thousands of dalit and adivasi peasants to get provisions... and other things.That is a lie. That is complete fucking bullshit and your showing your true nature as a cowardly, ignorant bourgeois stooge by spouting this kind of rubbish. The Naxalites do not need to kill peasants to get 'provisions', they have mass support amongst the adivasis who help them out willingly. Haven't you heard anything about what's been going on in Lalgarh?

The Indian Government is about to launch Operation Green Hunt. A hundred thousand soldiers and armed police are going to murder, rape and pillage their way through the poorest parts of India. The Naxalites are all that stand between the adivasis and the animals in the Indian military, and all you can do is repeat bourgeois slander. The average Maoist in India sacrifices more for the revolution in an hour than an anarchist like you could sacrifice in ten lifetimes, so shove your reactionary lies up your arse and fuck off.

This is not flaming. This is me getting pissed off at a phony 'leftist'. Real socialists do not slander revolutionary movements at a time when they're facing massive attack from the ruling class.

I don't go around saying the Spanish anarchists raped thousands of nuns in the civil war, although I could probably find as many 'sources' for it in reactionary media as you could for your ridiculous lies about the Indian Maoists. That's because I'm actually a revolutionary communist.

ffs

[Saorsa]

That wasn't an attack on all anarchists btw. Most anarchists are class fighters and IRL I work more closely and have more in common politically with some anarchists than I do with some 'marxists'. That was an attack on Mackalash for being a fucking idiot.

[pranabjyoti]

The Naxalites say that they're trying to liberatre Indians, but they've killed hundreds, maybe thousands of dalit and adivasi peasants to get provisions... and other things.
This man is spreading BS that even the Indian reactionaries dare to speak.

[cyu]

From http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/police-assault-women-factfinding-team-in-narayanapatna-orissa

reports of state-sponsored violence, rape, molestations and atrocities against adivasi villagers, and members of the Chasi Mulia Adivasi Sangh. According to reliable reports, the CMAS, a peaceful, democratic movement fighting for the dignity and rights of adivasis, is being branded extremist by the State in a prelude to unleashing terror on the tribal inhabitants of the area.

From http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/indian-gandhian-says-green-hunt-will-result-in-genocide-of-adivasis/

What stops the government from talking to the Adivasis? You are a democratically elected government, find out what your people want... Every day, your forces demand liquor, chickens, women… they behead a child in front of his grandfather, rape Adivasi women at will… And when the Adivasi picks up a lathi, they cry foul... Green Hunt will result in genocide of Adivasis. Those who survive will become Naxalites.

[Pogue]

The main problem is that the FARC are drug dealers! They are just nationalists who want to kick out the yankees!!!! they should be fighting for the International Proletariat instead!!!!!!! I know this because I have a magical autonomist pony that craps rainbow stew!!!!!!!!!!!!

funniest thing i've seen here in a while :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

That is a lie. That is complete fucking bullshit and your showing your true nature as a cowardly, ignorant bourgeois stooge by spouting this kind of rubbish.


The Naxalites are all that stand between the adivasis and the animals in the Indian military, and all you can do is repeat bourgeois slander. The average Maoist in India sacrifices more for the revolution in an hour than an anarchist like you could sacrifice in ten lifetimes, so shove your reactionary lies up your arse and fuck off.


This is not flaming. This is me getting pissed off at a phony 'leftist'. Real socialists do not slander revolutionary movements at a time when they're facing massive attack from the ruling class.

It's great that you disagree with me, but calling me an "ignorant bourgois stooge" and telling me to "shove [my] 'reactionary' lies up [my] arse and fuck off," is flaming, and it hardly makes you look any better than me, the "anarchistic" "slanderer".


The Naxalites do not need to kill peasants to get 'provisions', they have mass support amongst the adivasis who help them out willingly.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to help them out voluntarily, but a lot of people probably don't want thugs with Lee-Enfields and Kalashnikovs boarding up in their house and stealing their food. The issues the Naxalites bring up are important -land rights, environmental protection, famine prevention, poverty alleviation, equal rights for dalits and a safe forest for adivasis to grow food in without fear of encroachment by global firms-. But one could easily argue that the methods the Naxals use are questionable. A lot of people will tell you that they use tactics that are almost identical to that of the Salwa Judum, who rape and steal from other poor workers.


The Indian Government is about to launch Operation Green Hunt. A hundred thousand soldiers and armed police are going to murder, rape and pillage their way through the poorest parts of India.

I totally agree that the government is soing all the wrong things, and that their actions will be wrong for the Indian people. But that doesn't give the Naxals an excuse to do wrongheaded things in return.


That's because I'm actually a revolutionary communist.

What you call yourself is really irrelevant. "Revolutionary communist" means as much to me as "democracy" or "people's republic:" nothing.


That wasn't an attack on all anarchists btw. Most anarchists are class fighters and IRL I work more closely and have more in common politically with some anarchists than I do with some 'marxists'. That was an attack on Mackalash for being a fucking idiot.

Again, play nice. I'm just trying to talk with you.

[Andropov]

It's great that you disagree with me, but calling me an "ignorant bourgois stooge" and telling me to "shove [my] 'reactionary' lies up [my] arse and fuck off," is flaming, and it hardly makes you look any better than me, the "anarchistic" "slanderer".
No not really, you still look alot worse in this because you are merely repeating bourgeois slander and thus becoming a mouth piece for them.
Calling you out on that isnt bad IMO.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to help them out voluntarily, but a lot of people probably don't want thugs with Lee-Enfields and Kalashnikovs boarding up in their house and stealing their food. The issues the Naxalites bring up are important -land rights, environmental protection, famine prevention, poverty alleviation, equal rights for dalits and a safe forest for adivasis to grow food in without fear of encroachment by global firms-. But one could easily argue that the methods the Naxals use are questionable. A lot of people will tell you that they use tactics that are almost identical to that of the Salwa Judum, who rape and steal from other poor workers.
Ok here we go again with you repeating bourgeois reports attempting to slander genuine Revolutionarys.
What you fail to comprehend is that these Naxalites to survive must have the support of the peasants, they would not be able to survive undetected and protected if the peasants turned on them. Not only this but the very fact that the peasants sons, fathers, brothers, sisters and mothers all compile the membership of the Naxalites if they were indeed just thugs who raped and stole from the peasants it would be their very relatives and family they are doing it to.
You are just repeating bourgeois propagnda that when actually analysed shows itself to be such a fallacy because in the given context in India if the Naxalites did indeed commit these attrocities they simply would not be able to exist.

I totally agree that the government is soing all the wrong things, and that their actions will be wrong for the Indian people. But that doesn't give the Naxals an excuse to do wrongheaded things in return.
What the government is doing isnt wrong because of some bourgeois liberal sentimentality about human rights etc, its because of the context in which they do it.
I.E. attacking peasants who are poor because of a working class mobilisation agains the economic forces who exploit them.
I see no problem with lining up all government forces who butcher villages and peasants and executing them all, no problem at all because in this given context the Government warrants Revolutionary justice.
So it is not the method which we should focus on but the context, dont fall into the liberal trap.

[Davie zepeda]

I remember seeing something from a documentary that a cia informant said during the communist movement in Thailand," he said that the number of Communist surpassed what they thought and feared" if this were to come out the majority of citizens would join the communist and they would lose Thailand along with Vietnam and Laos. Remember that imperialist try to always minimize the affect of a revolution, By usually saying it no long hold's the same influence as before it's slander a tactic we all know.The fact Latin America is going through a new stage and to say Colombia is not is ignorant we all know the communist,socialist,anarchist ranks are swelling with people who think a new society can be reached now because of new Latin American progressive camp. I don't belvie what they say i know theres way more in the farc's army. Even though In war there is death that is why we want avoid war because innocent people suffer in war's.

[Ol' Dirty]

You are just repeating bourgeois propagnda that when actually analysed shows itself to be such a fallacy because in the given context in India if the Naxalites did indeed commit these attrocities they simply would not be able to exist.


It's not "bourgeois propaganda." Plenty of people on the left have been openly critical of the Naxals, foremost among them Arundhati Roy. My knowledge on this subject is indeed limited, but it's reminiscent in something I'm more familiar with: the FARC conflict. Some people on the left are willing to rationalize the activities of these hypocrites simply because the FARC touts itself as some kind of revolutionary vanguard. The way some people justify the atrocities is reminiscent of the way Zionists justify what's going on in Israel: "How can you possibly believe these anti-Semetic lies? Israel is just protecting itself against terrorism." And then they drop depleted uranium and white phosphor bombs on refugee camps.

For people who believe in Mao's "self-criticism," these people sure don't take criticism very well. :laugh:


I see no problem with lining up all government forces who butcher villages and peasants and executing them all, no problem at all because in this given context the Government warrants Revolutionary justice.

Yeah, that'll solve the problem... just line up everybody who disagrees with us and shoot them. It worked in the Soviet Union, China... why not in India? :rolleyes:. The revolution you have dictates the kind of society that will emerge.

The Zapatistas have waged a war against the Mexican govt., but have seemingly managed to remain free of broad criticism by the left. Why is that? Because the Zapatistas aren't being didactic pricks, going into Chiapas and saying "You Indios are simply too stupid to liberate yourselves. You obviously need some intellectual asshat from a university telling you what to do!" That's exactly what Leninists do every time they take power: they become didactic pricks who are too self-righteous to listen to anybody else's ideas. And that's exactly what's going on in India right now.

And again, I really don't care what jargon you try to use to sound like the "great defender of the proletariat," because you ultimately end up sounding like you know better than everybody else your because you're a "real hardcore revolutionary" or whatever. "Revolutionary justice" is just a fun phrase for killing people who disagree with you, which doesn't do anything productive for the working class... it just makes everybody resent the people in red.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's not "bourgeois propaganda." Plenty of people on the left have been openly critical of the Naxals, foremost among them Arundhati Roy.

I'm just going to call out on you for this one, because the rest is just BS in my opinion. This is an absolute lie! Have you not read "Walking with the Comrades" by Arundhati Roy, where she's spoken HIGHLY of the Naxalites & has brought about open 100% support towards them? Yes, before she made the trip to spend some time with the Naxalites, she was very critical of them, but ever since she actually went with them & lived with them, she's realized how important the Naxalites are & the future of India with their help. So no, if anything, Arundhati Roy is the voice of the Naxalites & knows very well that they're on the side of the people & the Indian government are the murderers & terrorists!

[red cat]

It's not "bourgeois propaganda." Plenty of people on the left have been openly critical of the Naxals, foremost among them Arundhati Roy.

I see that you are quite well informed about India. Do you hibernate sometimes ?

[The Grey Blur]

My favourite part in this thread was where the eejits supporting FARC and the eejits supporting the EZLN had an argument. "Our peasants with guns are more revolutionary than your peasants, stalinist/anarchist!"

I don't know much about FARC or the ELN, but I doubt they can bring socialism to Columbia. The revolution will be lead by the organised urban working classes, you cannot defeat the state by military force (except in unique circumstances, such as Cuba) but only by a mass struggle of the working people.

[red cat]

I don't know much about FARC or the ELN, but I doubt they can bring socialism to Columbia. The revolution will be lead by the organised urban working classes, you cannot defeat the state by military force (except in unique circumstances, such as Cuba) but only by a mass struggle of the working people.

1) Why urban working classes ?

2) Will this mass struggle be devoid of military force in not-so-unique circumstances ?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

1) Why urban working classes ?

2) Will this mass struggle be devoid of military force in not-so-unique circumstances ?

Is there a large rural working class? Landless laborers, migrant workers, and possibly gauchos, but are these layers able to develop a class consciousness different from that of the peasantry? Cities are where most industries are and where the working classes are traditionally concentrated.

Rural based guerrillism has only succeeded in one place, Cuba.

I enthusiastically support the struggle of Naxalites. Obviously any revolutionary socialist should. The urban working class, being the only class in which their own struggle for liberation must lead to the abolition of class society, i.e. socialism, must lead and be the root of any revolutionary struggle. If not the result will inevitably be bureaucratic deformation.

I don't know much about FARC. This seems to be an accurate summation


The Colombian State is a piece of shit, the Paramilitaries are their partners in atrocities, and the FARC unfortunately do not do enough to actually advance the education and organization of the proletariat or the peasants effectively, and so these violent and questionable "means" lead to no meaningful "end" to even justify them with. My father and his family, who were a lower middle class family struggling amidst the polarization of income distribution in Colombia during the 60's and 70's, explained to me the alienating approach which the FARC and their supporters took. Various car bombs and riots at universities prompted police to immediately tear gas his and other schools continuously, leaving students with abruptly interrupted and stalled educations in a situation where jobs were scarce and alternatives pointed nowhere. These working and middle class universities, which should have been hot-spots for constructive popularization, were exploited by these "agitators" for recognition in ways that hurt the very people the FARC claimed to be struggling for. This is just one personal example of how the proletariat felt they were largely disconnected with this movement after a certain point, and demonstrates why when I speak to working class Colombians today, I never hear the FARC mentioned as a vehicle for class liberation, despite anarchist/marxist tendencies among some of the poor. Their monopoly on the popular concept of Revolutionary Socialism in the country has also made it much more difficult (and even dangerous) for different efforts to enable the masses to gain footing.

In a different direction the EZLN has been making the same mistakes. Because of their anarchist/post modernist approach, they have not been orienting torwards the urban working classes of Mexico.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My favourite part in this thread was where the eejits supporting FARC and the eejits supporting the EZLN had an argument. "Our peasants with guns are more revolutionary than your peasants, stalinist/anarchist!"

I don't know much about FARC or the ELN, but I doubt they can bring socialism to Columbia. The revolution will be lead by the organised urban working classes, you cannot defeat the state by military force (except in unique circumstances, such as Cuba) but only by a mass struggle of the working people.

Soooo, those who've fought in the jungle are less likely to bring socialism to their people? And where did you learn this grand logic of yours from? And so do you just want them to be throwing rocks while holding signs, since you don't want them militant?

[Ol' Dirty]

I'll have to read more about this, but I'm still skeptical of their practices. There have been groups that haven't been criticized as heavily as the Naxalites, but it reminds me of the people who say that FARC is a group of "true revolutionaries" and discredit any criticism of them simply because they're fighting against the Colombian government and the transnational corporations active there.

[red cat]

Is there a large rural working class? Landless laborers, migrant workers, and possibly gauchos, but are these layers able to develop a class consciousness different from that of the peasantry?

Despite the fact that in neo-colonies, generally even wage workers are subject to almost feudal dictatorial methods, the fact that the production relations are somewhat similar to those of capitalism makes them distinct from the peasantry, irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.


Cities are where most industries are and where the working classes are traditionally concentrated.But the government troops are concentrated in the cities too. Without bourgeois democracy, the proletariat cannot have a real progressive organization of its own in the cities, particularly when in third world countries bigger heavy-industries which naturally cause the working class to be more organized, are very rare. Therefore it is necessary for a communist movement to maintain a rural force which will slowly politicize the masses, extend its organization into the cities, and then build urban workers' resistance movements.



Rural based guerrillism has only succeeded in one place, Cuba.Aren't you missing a big spot in Asia ?


I enthusiastically support the struggle of Naxalites. Obviously any revolutionary socialist should. The urban working class, being the only class in which their own struggle for liberation must lead to the abolition of class society, i.e. socialism, must lead and be the root of any revolutionary struggle. If not the result will inevitably be bureaucratic deformation.What has this theory of yours got to do with supporting the Naxalites ? I still don't understand why it has to be the urban working class.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'll have to read more about this, but I'm still skeptical of their practices. There have been groups that haven't been criticized as heavily as the Naxalites, but it reminds me of the people who say that FARC is a group of "true revolutionaries" and discredit any criticism of them simply because they're fighting against the Colombian government and the transnational corporations active there.

I'd recommend that you read this book before you make such harsh criticisms against a group that you have no real inside sources to back up such claims: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074532875X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-6&pf_rd_r=1BJVF7W384TB8F0D5FTC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938731&pf_rd_i=507846

[The Grey Blur]

Soooo, those who've fought in the jungle are less likely to bring socialism to their people? And where did you learn this grand logic of yours from?
Karl Marx.

I'll reply to the rest of the points later.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Karl Marx.

I'll reply to the rest of the points later.

Yeah, & Karl Marx hasn't witnessed the revolutions by jungle-living peasants & working class. He died before any of that could take place.

I'll reply to the rest when your "points" are made.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Soviet Union's revolution was a time when it showed the success of urban revolt. China's revolution was a time when it showed the success of rural revolt.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Aren't you missing a big spot in Asia ?

What has this theory of yours got to do with supporting the Naxalites ? I still don't understand why it has to be the urban working class.

My understanding is that the decisive battles of the Chinese Civil War-Laoshen, Chongchun, Huaihai, were conventional warfare. At Huaihai, a large part of the GMT army switched sides.

Guerilla warfare was important in holding the CCP forces together in the 30s and also was important during the extreme Japanese imperialist oppression, especially in North China, providing basically the only way for peasants to fight back.

The important thing though is that Jiefang wasn't led by the working class, it was a peasant based movement led by intellectuals.

New China achieved many important things which greatly benefited the Chinese people. A revolutionary movement though has to be led by the working class, if not, estimable as it may be, it will not be socialist. Regardless of the initial intentions, such a movement will inevitably backslide and degenerate.

Why was capitalism restored in China? Urban working class movements could have provided an alternative but such movements, like the Shanghai Commune, were crushed, leaving bureaucratic factions fighting for their own advantage. Capitalist restoration was inevitable.

I have an older friend who was a schoolteacher in Dongbei during the famine period following the Great Leap Forward. She was in a somewhat priveleged position but she literally watched people starve to death in the streets.

Famine and oppression would have been worse under the GMT warlord regime but still, are fiascos like the GLF, one of many, something that would happen under socialism?

I admit I am not super knowledgable about the Naxalites. Their struggle is important and exciting and I am studying it. I would love to see nothing more than communism established across South Asia. Will the Naxalite struggle succeed if it does not link with the large urban working class? Its been ongoing since 1969 I believe and has been crushed before. It would be a horrendous tragedy if this happened again.

[Ismail]

you wanna say that the mexican drug cartels are an progresive force? the crips and the bloods? the KKK? the sate capitalist USSR during the cold war?

Just because they call themselves socialists doesn't mean that they're worth supporting. The Shining Path in Peru was ruthless, and there have been numerous reports of unprovoked violence against innocent people by the FARC. The Naxalites say that they're trying to liberatre Indians, but they've killed hundreds, maybe thousands of dalit and adivasi peasants to get provisions....John Brown was ruthless, his gangster followers killed innocent farmers (much like STALIN!)

NEITHER JOHN BROWN NOR THE UNION GOVERNMENT WHICH KILLED HIM (BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PISS OFF SLAVEOWNERS)!!!!1

Why is this horrible Pre-Stalinist in your avatar, Mackalash? Do you support Hitler? The KKK? I bet you do. You... Leninist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

John Brown was ruthless, his gangster followers killed innocent farmers (much like STALIN!)

NEITHER JOHN BROWN NOR THE UNION GOVERNMENT WHICH KILLED HIM (BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PISS OFF SLAVEOWNERS)!!!!1

Why is this horrible Pre-Stalinist in your avatar, Mackalash? Do you support Hitler? The KKK? I bet you do. You... Leninist.

I'm confused..who's side you taking? And let's see, FARC is ruthless those that deserve it, just like the Nepalese Maoists operated & how the Naxalites operated. The Sendero Luminoso in Peru were once a great revolutionary group, but when Guzman was captured & the faction split took place, it went to shit. Especially when the revisionist, Comrade Viktor, took control of one of the factions & are the ones still waging attacks, especially on the innocent civilians, & went against code by working with the drug cartels.

Besides, there will never be a bloodless revolution. So to complain about "ruthlessness", then you might as well complain about the entirety of revolution. Che Guevara was ruthless, as Ismail pointed out John Brown was ruthless, George Washington was ruthless, etc. etc. We've got to be ruthless to achieve the goals we wish to achieve.

[red cat]

My understanding is that the decisive battles of the Chinese Civil War-Laoshen, Chongchun, Huaihai, were conventional warfare. At Huaihai, a large part of the GMT army switched sides.

Guerilla warfare was important in holding the CCP forces together in the 30s and also was important during the extreme Japanese imperialist oppression, especially in North China, providing basically the only way for peasants to fight back.

Maoist guerrilla warfare is supposed to develop into conventional warfare in its final stage.


The important thing though is that Jiefang wasn't led by the working class, it was a peasant based movement led by intellectuals.

New China achieved many important things which greatly benefited the Chinese people. A revolutionary movement though has to be led by the working class, if not, estimable as it may be, it will not be socialist. Regardless of the initial intentions, such a movement will inevitably backslide and degenerate.

Why was capitalism restored in China? Urban working class movements could have provided an alternative but such movements, like the Shanghai Commune, were crushed, leaving bureaucratic factions fighting for their own advantage. Capitalist restoration was inevitable.I am not an expert on China, but this is definitely an over-simplification. We have seen capitalist restoration in the USSR, where the urban working class was the main revolutionary force.


I have an older friend who was a schoolteacher in Dongbei during the famine period following the Great Leap Forward. She was in a somewhat priveleged position but she literally watched people starve to death in the streets.No matter where they are, privileged people always see nothing but misery under socialism.


Famine and oppression would have been worse under the GMT warlord regime but still, are fiascos like the GLF, one of many, something that would happen under socialism?Yes, socialism is a stage before communism. When a socialist state is surrounded by relatively more powerful capitalist states, such things might happen.


I admit I am not super knowledgable about the Naxalites. Their struggle is important and exciting and I am studying it. I would love to see nothing more than communism established across South Asia. Will the Naxalite struggle succeed if it does not link with the large urban working class? Its been ongoing since 1969 I believe and has been crushed before. It would be a horrendous tragedy if this happened again.Ironically, the naxalite movement was almost completely crushed when it was based mainly on the urban proletariat. It has been continued ever since by the rural proletariat and peasantry, and is now almost big enough to organize urban workers.

[pranabjyoti]

Ironically, the naxalite movement was almost completely crushed when it was based mainly on the urban proletariat. It has been continued ever since by the rural proletariat and peasantry, and is now almost big enough to organize urban workers.
Actually, when the Naxalite movement has been crushed by the state, it had taken some kind of Anarchist nature and at that time, its base was city dwelling middle class, not urban proletariat. As under the line of CM, they have purposefully boycotted all kind of organizations like trade unions, they also become detached from the city dwelling urban proletariat. Moreover, no importance was given to built an army and the state power crushed the organizations easily.

[red cat]

Actually, when the Naxalite movement has been crushed by the state, it had taken some kind of Anarchist nature and at that time, its base was city dwelling middle class, not urban proletariat. As under the line of CM, they have purposefully boycotted all kind of organizations like trade unions, they also become detached from the city dwelling urban proletariat. Moreover, no importance was given to built an army and the state power crushed the organizations easily.

The middle class was largely what Maoists call the left wing of the petite-bourgeoisie. The cadres came mostly from families engaging in teaching, government services etc. In any non-Maoist analysis, they are considered a part of the urban proletariat. Moreover, Maoist influence was notable in many slums which were the dwelling places of factory-workers.

[Ismail]

I'm confused..who's side you taking?It was sarcasm...

[Saorsa]

It's not "bourgeois propaganda." Plenty of people on the left have been openly critical of the Naxals, foremost among them Arundhati Roy.

Yes, it is. Please provide links to these articles where genuine leftists have put forward the kind of slander that you have. And as for your understanding of Arundhati Roy's views ... I think you need to do a bit more research :lol:

It's worth mentioning that the problem here isn't being critical of the Naxalites. Marxism is a science and as such it's open to peer review. The Naxalites themselves would agree with that. The problem is when otherwise well meaning Western leftists take the lies of the bourgeois media and bourgeois academia at face value and assume them to be true. The Naxalites have been accused of everything from witchcraft to cannibalism... do you believe everything you hear?


My knowledge on this subject is indeed limited, but it's reminiscent in something I'm more familiar with: the FARC conflict.

So... you're admitting that you really don't know what you're talking about, and that in fact your just assuming the Naxalites are nasty vicious red terrorists because you feel that way about the FARC. The same FARC which is not a Maoist group, exists under totally different condititons, has a different method of organising and is basically completely different. You're using a very strange method of analysis.



Yeah, that'll solve the problem... just line up everybody who disagrees with us and shoot them.

Um, no. I'd love for you to produce the quote of mine where I said that. What I actually said, as you're fully aware, is that the oppressed masses can deal with their oppressors however they want. Of course I don't support killing people over disagreements. Why would I post on a site like this if I felt that way? Ask around, I haven't mailed any letter bombs to anyone in the past few years. But when an organisation of armed, communist peasants attacks and wipes out a state death squad, filled with murders, rapists and enemies of the people... how could you feel anything but happiness?


The revolution you have dictates the kind of society that will emerge.

True. But the society you are in also dictates the kind of revolution you must have. And the Naxalites themselves have found that they simply cannot organise the masses without an armed wing to defend these efforts. For example, they organised a mass Land to the Tiller campaign in Andra Pradhesh, encouraging poor and landless peasants to seize the land of the feudal elites. This was then met by a wave of police violence and paramilitary assassinations which crushed the peasant's movement and led to a massive setback for the struggle in that area.

The Naxals learned from their mistake. If you seek to punch an armed man in the nose, make sure that when he goes for his gun you can pull out a gun of your own and shoot him first.


The Zapatistas have waged a war against the Mexican govt., but have seemingly managed to remain free of broad criticism by the left. Why is that?

Because the Zapatistas are safe. They gave up their armed struggle very quickly after achieving very little with it, and while we have a lot to learn from them and they should be supported as a movement, they have no plans to bring down the ruling class and no plans to capture state power. This has allowed the Mexican state to tolerate them, and it's allowed hippy leftists in the First World to have orgasms over how wonderful they are.


Because the Zapatistas aren't being didactic pricks, going into Chiapas and saying "You Indios are simply too stupid to liberate yourselves. You obviously need some intellectual asshat from a university telling you what to do!"

You mean an 'intellectual asshat from a university' like... uh, Marcos? You've already admitted you know nothing about the People's War in India or the CPI (Maoist), so there's no need to prove it over and over again. Please provide some evidence that indicates this is the attitude the Naxalites take towards the masses. I find it quite strange that with such an arrogant method of work they've developed such a massive support base amongst the tribal people.


That's exactly what Leninists do every time they take power: they become didactic pricks who are too self-righteous to listen to anybody else's ideas. And that's exactly what's going on in India right now.

Please explain what makes you think that is what's happening in India right now. You mentioned Arundhati Roy earlier in a way that indicates you respect her opinion... perhaps you should read her very recent, very first-hand account of how the Maoists work among the people. (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264738)


And again, I really don't care what jargon you try to use to sound like the "great defender of the proletariat," because you ultimately end up sounding like you know better than everybody else your because you're a "real hardcore revolutionary" or whatever.

We end up sounding that way? There was me thinking the last few posts of yours consisted of you admitting you knew next to nothing about the Naxalites, but still felt you had the right to make sweeping judgements of them and what they're like. This is just bizarre.


"Revolutionary justice" is just a fun phrase for killing people who disagree with you, which doesn't do anything productive for the working class... it just makes everybody resent the people in red.

Well, time will tell whether the Indian workers and peasants just end up resenting the Naxalites. The way the movement has grown over the past few years doesn't really indicate that to me, but I suppose you know best.

[Ol' Dirty]

I've begun to read Arundhati's paper, but again, I'm still pretty wary of people who force people into a revolutionary army at the point of a gun. I really do need to read more on it, but thatnk you for helping me see the other point of view. I'll let you know if my opinion has changed if and when I get back to it. The paper is very helpful, though.

[pranabjyoti]

I've begun to read Arundhati's paper, but again, I'm still pretty wary of people who force people into a revolutionary army at the point of a gun. I really do need to read more on it, but thatnk you for helping me see the other point of view. I'll let you know if my opinion has changed if and when I get back to it. The paper is very helpful, though.
Can anybody force your join US army and killing innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan ON GUNPOINT? There still exists and old proverb: "you can take an unwilling horse to the water but can not make it drink". If people has been introduced into the revolutionary army ON GUNPOINT, then those, who are introduced ON GUNPOINT will flee on the first chance and very quickly the army will disintegrate.

[Saorsa]

I've begun to read Arundhati's paper, but again, I'm still pretty wary of people who force people into a revolutionary army at the point of a gun.

The Naxalites don't force people to join their army. They wouldn't trust someone with a gun if they didn't feel the person was committed to the revolutionary movement.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've actually got a friend that visits Colombia quite a bit, keep in mind he openly supports the Venezuelan rise in socialism & a huge supporter in the Nepalese Maoists armed resistance, but he says that from what he's seen in Colombia is that people are highly against FARC. Is there any truth to this?

[RedSonRising]

I've actually got a friend that visits Colombia quite a bit, keep in mind he openly supports the Venezuelan rise in socialism & a huge supporter in the Nepalese Maoists armed resistance, but he says that from what he's seen in Colombia is that people are highly against FARC. Is there any truth to this?

I visit Colombia often and I've never seen one shred of popular support for the FARC from any individual from any class, including activists. There is simply too much violence harming the countryside and causing negative spillovers to the rest of the country and association with the drug trade with little to no connection to the working class or efforts to educate or organize anything beyond militias within the country.

People living abroad try and ignore or justify civilian bombings and the lack of real socialist building among the guerrillas but from within the country at least from my experience there is little to no support for them. Same with the paramilitaries.

[Nolan]

I visit Colombia often and I've never seen one shred of popular support for the FARC from any individual from any class, including activists. There is simply too much violence harming the countryside and causing negative spillovers to the rest of the country and association with the drug trade with little to no connection to the working class or efforts to educate or organize anything beyond militias within the country.

People living abroad try and ignore or justify civilian bombings and the lack of real socialist building among the guerrillas but from within the country at least from my experience there is little to no support for them. Same with the paramilitaries.

Yeah, there's just too much violence. Nobody trusts any side. And the Colombian state has made sure to give them a bad rap while going relatively easy on the paramilitaries and ignoring its own heinous crimes, so it's no surprise they don't have much popular support. I've heard that they do in some rural areas, however. The ELN's image is much better.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, there's just too much violence. Nobody trusts any side. And the Colombian state has made sure to give them a bad rap while going relatively easy on the paramilitaries and ignoring its own heinous crimes, so it's no surprise they don't have much popular support. I've heard that they do in some rural areas, however. The ELN's image is much better.

Which is why the coexistence between FARC & the ELN is a necessary step if FARC wants to push itself towards the dismantling of the Filipino State.

[Nolan]

Which is why the coexistence between FARC & the ELN is a necessary step if FARC wants to push itself forwards towards the dismantling of the Filipino State.

They have a branch in the Philippines? Awesome

[Homo Songun]

I visit Colombia often and I've never seen one shred of popular support for the FARC from any individual from any class, including activists. There is simply too much violence harming the countryside and causing negative spillovers to the rest of the country and association with the drug trade with little to no connection to the working class or efforts to educate or organize anything beyond militias within the country.

Even if this was true, it would be impossible.

[The Vegan Marxist]

They have a branch in the Philippines? Awesome

Well the ELN & FARC have been talking about banding together lately. So hopefully it takes place.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Even if this was true, it would be impossible.

what would be impossible?

[Nolan]

Well the ELN & FARC have been talking about banding together lately. So hopefully it takes place.

Hi, we're the Revolutionary armed forces of Colombia...and we're liberating the Philippines! :lol:

[Homo Songun]

Even if this was true, it would be impossible.
what would be impossible?

Let us suppose that RedSonRising's false statement is true. I won't get into the fact that the spectacular death squad and paramilitary violence might influence people against publicly making statements of support for a rebel army struggling for state power (and to a random stranger no less). On a sheer logistical level, how is it that a group can grow an army to several tens of thousands, persist over four decades, and maintain fairly resilient control over anywhere from 25% to 40% of the country? It flies in the face of every single doctrine of guerrilla and/or counter-insurgency warfare there is. Not to mention logic and reality.

[RedSonRising]

Let us suppose that RedSonRising's false statement is true. I won't get into the fact that the spectacular death squad and paramilitary violence might influence people against publicly making statements of support for a rebel army struggling for state power (and to a random stranger no less). On a sheer logistical level, how is it that a group can grow an army to several tens of thousands, persist over four decades, and maintain fairly resilient control over anywhere from 25% to 40% of the country? It flies in the face of every single doctrine of guerrilla and/or counter-insurgency warfare there is. Not to mention logic and reality.

First of all my statement is not false, they are based on my and my family's firsthand experiences. My parents grew up during the height of the violence and even though they were studying in faraway cities, the effects of non-constructive agitation and violence reached even there and the constant disruption of their education along with the subsequent police repression is part of the reason they migrated, and nobody was better off for it domestically.

I do not deny that the movement had ideological roots or that there are true communists within the leadership, but massive unemployment and a lack of services makes those offered by the FARC attractive to the dispossessed.

Recent decades have seen the FARC degenerate and resort to compulsory peasant occupations. A few thousand troops in a regiment occupying relatively sparse countryside inaccessible by conventional military is a successful guerrilla insurgency I suppose, but says nothing about the link between the proletariat and such an organization. There is no collective building of revolutionary goals within most of the working population coming from the FARC.

[RedSonRising]

Well the ELN & FARC have been talking about banding together lately. So hopefully it takes place.

The ELN is a Colombian rebel group, comrade. The joining the thread refers to is of two separate guerrilla groups within Colombia who have chosen to cooperate and consolidate forces. The Filipino insurgency is something different.

[Homo Songun]

To be clear: I am not calling you a liar, I am saying your statement does not concord with reality.


I do not deny that the movement had ideological roots or that there are true communists within the leadership, but massive unemployment and a lack of services makes those offered by the FARC attractive to the dispossessed.

You see, you just contradicted your own earlier statement.


Recent decades have seen the FARC degenerate and resort to compulsory peasant occupations.

Yes, I know, they also eat babies, etc.


A few thousand troops in a regiment occupying relatively sparse countryside inaccessible by conventional military is a successful guerrilla insurgency but says nothing about the link between the proletariat and such an organization.

And what about the peasants? Chopped liver?

[RedSonRising]

To be clear: I am not calling you a liar, I am saying your statement does not concord with reality.



You see, you just contradicted your own earlier statement.



Yes, I know, they also eat babies, etc.



And what about the peasants? Chopped liver?

How did I contradict myself? There is no revolutionary movement coming from the FARC, only violence. Blowing up civilians by negligence, indifference, or constant mistake is not something that can be brushed off as a typical "baby eating" argument. Confront this reality. I already mentioned peasants, the relationship is varied, but the existence of the FARC as a revolutionary organization building socialism that can replace the state in an authentically proletarian-supported manner is simply a delusion. They are isolated from the large majority country's oppressed poor and create more incentives for violent conflict and state retaliation through the drug trade and their aimless mortar rounds.

[The Vegan Marxist]

First of all my statement is not false, they are based on my and my family's firsthand experiences. My parents grew up during the height of the violence and even though they were studying in faraway cities, the effects of non-constructive agitation and violence reached even there and the constant disruption of their education along with the subsequent police repression is part of the reason they migrated, and nobody was better off for it domestically.

I do not deny that the movement had ideological roots or that there are true communists within the leadership, but massive unemployment and a lack of services makes those offered by the FARC attractive to the dispossessed.

Recent decades have seen the FARC degenerate and resort to compulsory peasant occupations. A few thousand troops in a regiment occupying relatively sparse countryside inaccessible by conventional military is a successful guerrilla insurgency I suppose, but says nothing about the link between the proletariat and such an organization. There is no collective building of revolutionary goals within most of the working population coming from the FARC.

But you've got to admit that there's a huge anti-FARC propaganda campaign used against them by the Colombian State, in which is helped by the U.S. as well, first hand. This is totally different from areas like Nepal or India, where the U.S. is not within a grasp of waging a counter revolution against those rebel groups. FARC has some great responsibility in this revolt of theirs, so naturally they're not going to get much done as long as the Colombian-U.S. relations persist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The ELN is a Colombian rebel group, comrade. The joining the thread refers to is of two separate guerrilla groups within Colombia who have chosen to cooperate and consolidate forces. The Filipino insurgency is something different.

My mistake, I was tired last night. Didn't realize what I was agreeing to. I'll retract the statement about the Philippines. I made this statement after making the "News on the NPA" thread, so naturally the Philippines was still in my head. :lol: But yes, the ELN & FARC are joining forces in Colombia, not Philippines, in the hopes of brining forth a larger struggle against the Colombian State.

[Nolan]

I'd be willing to bet that most murders and acts of violence that have been pinned on the FARC and the ELN were in fact carried out by someone else. The Colombian state very likely forces or pays the media to do so. The Colombian state, the paramilitaries, and the cartels are all ten times the murderers than any revolutionary group in Colombia. At least the FARC has never been known to decapitate and castrate its victims. The crocodile tears that Colombian politicians cry whenever they talk about FARC violence disgust me.

[RedSonRising]

But you've got to admit that there's a huge anti-FARC propaganda campaign used against them by the Colombian State, in which is helped by the U.S. as well, first hand. This is totally different from areas like Nepal or India, where the U.S. is not within a grasp of waging a counter revolution against those rebel groups. FARC has some great responsibility in this revolt of theirs, so naturally they're not going to get much done as long as the Colombian-U.S. relations persist.

The propaganda emphasis on the FARC is sickenly one-sided for obvious reasons, and the Paramilitaries are much worse in their indiscriminate killings, however that does not justify nor erase the evidence that the FARC harm civilians consistently and lack any real connection to the working class.

"Human Rights Watch considers that 'the FARC-EPs continued use of gas cylinder mortars shows this armed group's flagrant disregard for lives of civilians...gas cylinder bombs are impossible to aim with accuracy and, as a result, frequently strike civilian objects and cause avoidable civilian casualties.'"

Another implication of their degeneration is their funding, and I'm not simply speaking of taxing coca farmers. In an article from LatinLawyer concerning a lawsuit against Chiquita banana for funding the Paramilitaries, the following was reported:

"The case follows from a lawsuit against Chiquita launched last month on behalf of relatives of US citizens murdered by the leftist guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - to which Chiquita has also admitted to making payments."

It would be nice and all if the United States weren't a pervading presence military and ideologically within the government structure of Colombia and the FARC hadn't degenerated into a barely supported insurgency promoting rural violence, but the fact is it has, and revolutionaries with the balls to be honest about once authentic organizations gone by the wayside should asses the situation objectively without simply holding on to an illusion of success for the sake of protecting one's politics.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The propaganda emphasis on the FARC is sickenly one-sided for obvious reasons, and the Paramilitaries are much worse in their indiscriminate killings, however that does not justify nor erase the evidence that the FARC harm civilians consistently and lack any real connection to the working class.

"Human Rights Watch considers that 'the FARC-EPs continued use of gas cylinder mortars shows this armed group's flagrant disregard for lives of civilians...gas cylinder bombs are impossible to aim with accuracy and, as a result, frequently strike civilian objects and cause avoidable civilian casualties.'"

Another implication of their degeneration is their funding, and I'm not simply speaking of taxing coca farmers. In an article from LatinLawyer concerning a lawsuit against Chiquita banana for funding the Paramilitaries, the following was reported:

"The case follows from a lawsuit against Chiquita launched last month on behalf of relatives of US citizens murdered by the leftist guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - to which Chiquita has also admitted to making payments."

It would be nice and all if the United States weren't a pervading presence military and ideologically within the government structure of Colombia and the FARC hadn't degenerated into a barely supported insurgency promoting rural violence, but the fact is it has, and revolutionaries with the balls to be honest about once authentic organizations gone by the wayside should asses the situation objectively without simply holding on to an illusion of success for the sake of protecting one's politics.

First of all, let me state that I'm glad you're being open minded about this & not being an ass when debating about the FARC.

Having said that, I can't take these "quotes" as a reason to believe they're true. Especially when it comes from a "Human Watch" service. There's a political basis behind these watch centers, & this was even apparent when an American watch center started attacking the UCPN-M through western propaganda.

[RedSonRising]

First of all, let me state that I'm glad you're being open minded about this & not being an ass when debating about the FARC.

Having said that, I can't take these "quotes" as a reason to believe they're true. Especially when it comes from a "Human Watch" service. There's a political basis behind these watch centers, & this was even apparent when an American watch center started attacking the UCPN-M through western propaganda.

I'm also grateful and respect your opinions on the matter. Mutual education is the goal.

As far as the Human Rights Watch report, I don't fully trust their accounts, it was the most readily available source. There are numerous massacres that have taken place in specific regions of Colombia that are well known throughout the country to have been perpetuated by the FARC. I'd assume the list from the Paramilitaries is probably longer, however their credentials are clearly not a point of disagreement.

Here is an article from the International Federation of Human rights on the Bojaya massacre:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.fidh.org/Una-guerra-sin-limites-119-civiles-muertos-y&ei=E-rpS_3GKcKB8gbt95G8Cw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmasacre%2Bde%2Bbojaya%26hl%3Den%26cli ent%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DPxe%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

Here is one on the massacre of La Gabarra (You'll have to translate it):

http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?ref=0&articuloid=136402

This one is a Common Dreams article on human rights abuses by both the FARC and AUC: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0419-04.htm

Some quotes:

"A neighbor pounced upon a paramilitary that was ready to shoot him and took his weapon, but unfortunately he didn't know how to fire a rifle. They dragged him away, cut him open with a chainsaw and chopped him up," a witness of the massacre told El Espectador daily.


In all the massacres, "some by the guerrillas, some by the paramilitaries, the civilian population are the victims," said Cifuentes, adding that he has already come under a "death threat."


He said there were "4,000 people unable to leave the Alto Naya area since the massacre," and that authorities have been asked to set up a "military airlift" to feed them.


"Nobody, paramilitary or guerrillas, respects international human rights," said Cifuentes before providing details of a recent attack on Almaguer, also in Cauca department, by the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the country's largest rebel group.


The FARC "blew up the church and destroyed three neighborhoods with tractors and pipe bombs."


Around 400 FARC guerrillas killed at least 28 civilians and destroyed 20 stores Sunday in Taraza (450 kilometers -- 280 miles -- northeast of here), whose inhabitants were also charged with helping "the enemy," meaning the extreme right-wing United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC).

[Homo Songun]

Another implication of their degeneration is their funding, and I'm not simply speaking of taxing coca farmers. In an article from LatinLawyer concerning a lawsuit against Chiquita banana for funding the Paramilitaries, the following was reported:

"The case follows from a lawsuit against Chiquita launched last month on behalf of relatives of US citizens murdered by the leftist guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - to which Chiquita has also admitted to making payments."
And who were those US citizens, and what do you suppose they were doing in Colombia? Do you think they were poor campesinos? United Fruit, aka "Chiquita", has one of the most monstrous track records in all of Latin America. Why do you care if FARC kills some willing lieutenants of yanqui imperialism? Don't you know about United Fruit's 1928 Banana Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre) in Ciénaga (Colombia)? I see you have Che Guevara as your avatar. Do you know why Che became a Communist? A pivotal experience for him was in Guatemala 1954, when Arbenz was overthrown. And do you know on behalf of whom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) Arbenz was overthrown? You have one guess. :rolleyes:

This is not an example of "degeneration", it is an example of executing a correct politico-military line.


In all the massacres, "some by the guerrillas, some by the paramilitaries, the civilian population are the victims," said Cifuentes,

Yeah, in the same way that "some Palestinians, some Israelis" have been killed in the current Intifadah. :rolleyes: How do you think a civil war is supposed to go? Pillow fights? Unicorns and fairy dust? Revolution is not a dinner party.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would have to agree with Wang Ji's statements. There seems to be a lot of odd - lacked? - information about "U.S. citizens". Then others are taken by "witnessed" accounts. Amazing how they witnessed the account of people getting chainsawed to pieces without them getting caught, despite the fact that this has never been an element of punishment by FARC as seen by personal eye-witnesses who walked with FARC & even wrote books about it.

This type of "evidence" has been the same as used against such guerrilla groups like the UCPN-M, the Naxalites, the Sendero Luminoso (before the faction split), & so on & so forth. It's incredibly hard to take such accounts as truth.

[RedSonRising]

And who were those US citizens, and what do you suppose they were doing in Colombia? Do you think they were poor campesinos? United Fruit, aka "Chiquita", has one of the most monstrous track records in all of Latin America. Why do you care if FARC kills some willing lieutenants of yanqui imperialism? Don't you know about United Fruit's 1928 Banana Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre) in Ciénaga (Colombia)? I see you have Che Guevara as your avatar. Do you know why Che became a Communist? A pivotal experience for him was in Guatemala 1954, when Arbenz was overthrown. And do you know on behalf of whom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) Arbenz was overthrown? You have one guess. :rolleyes:

This is not an example of "degeneration", it is an example of executing a correct politico-military line.



Yeah, in the same way that "some Palestinians, some Israelis" have been killed in the current Intifadah. :rolleyes: How do you think a civil war is supposed to go? Pillow fights? Unicorns and fairy dust? Revolution is not a dinner party.

The banana massacre and United Fruit plaguing Latin America is something I'm very familiar with, Allen Dulles' interests propelling the military defense of such industries, leading to the banana wars and a symbolically repressive institution for the Cuban Revolution. Che Guevara was also very disciplined in emphasizing staying away from the drug trade, only engaging the people of the countryside by



If you ride off every source of journalism, including common dreams which is a fairly progressive news source, as "imperialist lies" and nitpick about the fact it's not a 40 page long report, then you will certainly by default believe every organization proclaiming to represent Marxism is an authentic organization. By this logic, Foreign Terrorism, Racist fringe groups, and domestic crime simply does not exist, because it's covered by non-Marxist sources.

You can give me that bullshit dinner party excuse every time a civilian dies from a FARC offensive. Violence is necessary in many revolutionary situations, but is only justifiable when a viable alternative is presented, and the FARC have no revolutionary credibility outside of their own existence. If the FARC did not exist, a more cohesive and strategic approach to revolutionary resistance could be made in Colombia without the unpopular militarization of the countryside, civilian deaths, encouragement of coca production, and constant violence for the sole purpose of territorial domination. If the FARC did not exist, more opportunities would be open for constructive organization, and Colombia as a whole would be better off. I'm not denying their intentions or their ideological standpoint, but their practices are not very revolutionary in the eyes of anyone that values human life and popular struggle beyond constant machine gun fire.

The Sendero Luminoso has degenerated into a similar state of violence without class coordination. My close friend grew up in Pucalpa in the Peruvian countryside and described them as nothing but murderers. When you can give me an account of destructive violence against the working class/oppressed based on firsthand experience, a few interviews and accounts glorifying the soldier and an ideological blanket does not convince me the organization is worth supporting. After hearing public accounts of brainwashing by ex-soldiers, hearing of the seizure of children within the organization, my families' accounts of the national turmoil brought about by their isolated agitation, and physically seeing firsthand people pour into the cities of Colombia left with nothing and displaced from the rural violence they perpetuate, I cannot as a socialist call the FARC a revolutionary group benefiting or even engaging the working class. I'm tired of hearing people who have never stepped foot in the country defend such a murderous group with ideological banter and naive defensiveness (not referring to any poster I am conversing with.)

latinamericanstudies.org has compiled a list of human rights abuses by the FARC through a research project posted online with sources included. You can choose to believe these events and accept the possibility already established by the majority of the country itself that not every organization that waves a red flag is worth supporting, or you can ignore them and eschew reality for the more pleasant lie that says all guerrillas rock, and anyone that says different are imperialist liars or naive obama lovers.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/farc/557_Reasons.pdf

A Sample:

Aug 18 | Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca
FARC terrorists killed one civilian and wounded 13
including 2 minors, after detonating a car bomb next to a
police station.

May 27 | Cauca
FARC terrorists threatened around 400 people, forcing
them to leave their homes and lands.

Jul 11 | Popayán, Cauca
FARC terrorists launched 4 mortars against a residential
area causing great damage to several homes.

Nov 11 | Urumita, La Guajira
FARC terrorists murdered Pervis Pacheco Díaz, an
indigenous leader of the Kankuamo community. The
indigenous leader had left his community due to death
threats.

Nov 11 | La Sierra, Cauca
FARC terrorists murdered the Governor of the Yanacona
indigenous group, Plinio Piamba Jiménez, and his son.

Aug 11 | Tibú, Norte de Santander
FARC terrorists massacred 10 peasants in the town of Tibú
in the middle of the Catatumbo jungle. The terrorists left 6
peasants alive to tell the story.

[pranabjyoti]

First of all my statement is not false, they are based on my and my family's firsthand experiences. My parents grew up during the height of the violence and even though they were studying in faraway cities, the effects of non-constructive agitation and violence reached even there and the constant disruption of their education along with the subsequent police repression is part of the reason they migrated, and nobody was better off for it domestically.

I do not deny that the movement had ideological roots or that there are true communists within the leadership, but massive unemployment and a lack of services makes those offered by the FARC attractive to the dispossessed.

Recent decades have seen the FARC degenerate and resort to compulsory peasant occupations. A few thousand troops in a regiment occupying relatively sparse countryside inaccessible by conventional military is a successful guerrilla insurgency I suppose, but says nothing about the link between the proletariat and such an organization. There is no collective building of revolutionary goals within most of the working population coming from the FARC.
If you come to India and talk to any Indian citizen, you will see very little supporter of Maoists there. Why? Because as per the demonic UAPA law of India, even if you speak for as a supporter of Maoists, you can be JAILED FOR TEN YEARS OR MORE. Do you know that Colombia don't have such kind of law or something worse? All of you are just outsiders, just by visiting Colombia for few days and asking a few people (whatever class they may belong), JUST ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL SCENARIO ON SUCH A CIVIL WAR LIKE CONDITIONS. So, kindly think twice before coming to any conclusion.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Aug 18 | Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca
FARC terrorists killed one civilian and wounded 13
including 2 minors, after detonating a car bomb next to a
police station.

Okay, so this was an accident. Innocent life was never meant to be taken, rather was aimed towards the feudal police of Colombia. This happens all the time in revolutionary warfare. If one thinks they're going to wage a revolution & hope no innocent life is taken because of such, then you don't understand the risks behind revolutions. If that was the case, then I'm sure we'd be seeing a shit load of more revolutions than we do now.


May 27 | Cauca
FARC terrorists threatened around 400 people, forcing
them to leave their homes and lands.

Is there any reports to substantiate this, or any witnesses? Can this be backed up with evidence? Also, who were these people? I've seen similar reports in India & Nepal where the Maoists would threaten landlords to get out or killed, through a court-led trial, in order to protect those that are unprotected.


Jul 11 | Popayán, Cauca
FARC terrorists launched 4 mortars against a residential
area causing great damage to several homes.

Where were the mortars aimed at? And to who? What about the damage made by the other side? Where were these homes located? Upper class or peasantry? I see a lot of reporting, yet no explaining whatsoever.


Nov 11 | Urumita, La Guajira
FARC terrorists murdered Pervis Pacheco Díaz, an
indigenous leader of the Kankuamo community. The
indigenous leader had left his community due to death
threats.

So wait, this man left because of death threats made by him, I'm guessing those within the community, because internet service & mail postage isn't really something well used in such areas. What were the threats for, & why did they kill him? Something doesn't seem right about this & is only giving a black & white picture of the situation.


Nov 11 | La Sierra, Cauca
FARC terrorists murdered the Governor of the Yanacona
indigenous group, Plinio Piamba Jiménez, and his son.

Again, why? And is there anything that can back up or substantiate these reportings?


Aug 11 | Tibú, Norte de Santander
FARC terrorists massacred 10 peasants in the town of Tibú
in the middle of the Catatumbo jungle. The terrorists left 6
peasants alive to tell the story.

So wait, FARC, the group who's trying to gain numbers from the peasantry & working class, killed peasants & left others alive to tell other people that FARC killed peasants? No, it couldn't have been the right-wing paramilitaries within the Colombian villages threatening the surviving villagers that if they don't tell others it was FARC then they'd get killed themselves. That's insane! Right?

These reportings show absolutely nothing!

[Robocommie]

These reportings show absolutely nothing!

I have to agree with VM. Reports of violence without context is meaningless.

In particular, that last one, about FARC massacring peasants and then leaving some alive to tell the story, seems absurdly dubious. What could be the motive for FARC to do that? Even if they were corrupt, what would they gain?

[Homo Songun]

I have to agree with VM. Reports of violence without context is meaningless.

In particular, that last one, about FARC massacring peasants and then leaving some alive to tell the story, seems absurdly dubious. What could be the motive for FARC to do that? Even if they were corrupt, what would they gain?

Same reason the paramilitaries would do it: to send a message, "don't fuck with us". That much is not in question, I should think. The real issue is, do these kinds of atrocities make any sense according to guerrilla war doctrine? It does not. Of course, that is not proof that the FARC isn't responsible, but it indicates that FARC doesn't have a profitable motive for such actions. On the other hand, these kinds of atrocities make perfect sense from a counter-insurgency perspective. That is why the School of America teaches those tactics to the Colombian military.

[RedSonRising]

Your Skepticism is amazing. I provide evidence, and you say there is no evidence for the evidence, and then use the presumptive logic that they would not do this because it is "against guerrilla doctrine."


Is there any evidence against any of these things happening? Bourgeois media exaggerates, spins, fabricates, but hardly to the extent that you see the reporting on this activity. What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe the FARC engages in such undesirable practices?

Even though the context of each violent incident is unclear, what I have tried to present is that throughout collected reports, firsthand accounts and visible displacement acknowledged by these victims, the evidence is sufficient to assert that the FARC harm the rural population on several levels, and their lack of any social or political link to any significant portion of the oppressed population makes them unqualified for genuine revolutionary support. Please outline your requirements for credible evidence.

Here is a series of interviews with farmers in the countryside specifically talking about how the violence in the war, particularly the widespread use of landmines (which is a huge problem in the country) have hurt the rural workers without any sort of popular integration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlhxLSbmQO8

[The Vegan Marxist]

Your Skepticism is amazing. I provide evidence, and you say there is no evidence for the evidence, and then use the presumptive logic that they would not do this because it is "against guerrilla doctrine."


Is there any evidence against any of these things happening? Bourgeois media exaggerates, spins, fabricates, but hardly to the extent that you see the reporting on this activity. What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe the FARC engages in such undesirable practices?

Even though the context of each violent incident is unclear, what I have tried to present is that throughout collected reports, firsthand accounts and visible displacement acknowledged by these victims, the evidence is sufficient to assert that the FARC harm the rural population on several levels, and their lack of any social or political link to any significant portion of the oppressed population makes them unqualified for genuine revolutionary support. Please outline your requirements for credible evidence.

Here is a series of interviews with farmers in the countryside specifically talking about how the violence in the war, particularly the widespread use of landmines (which is a huge problem in the country) have hurt the rural workers without any sort of popular integration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlhxLSbmQO8

I pointed out how black & white your "evidence" was. Meaning, it can't prove whether FARC was behind it or not. It's not under a correct line of whether one can support FARC or go against them. And your video shows how people are effected by the violence brought forth in Colombia. But it's violence which is brought by both FARC & the right-wing paramilitaries. Though, how can things get better if those, who started violence in Colombia in the first place, are not out of power? FARC's violence is an action against the violence that was brought on the Colombian people. Does that mean it's good? No, not necessarily, but it justifies reasoning behind why FARC continue to try & fight against the Colombian State. Reason people are against FARC is because of the propaganda brought against them, in which you clearly tried showing us, in which I showed how black & white they really were. So my support is still with FARC & their armed struggle against the Colombian State.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Alright, this has a lot of relevancy & I believe brings some light into the "evidence" against FARC. I'm presenting an article by a man named James J. Brittain. He's written books about FARC based on his personal experiences while walking with the Colombian guerrillas. Remember when you said that FARC members used chainsaws against their victims? Think again!


Run, Fight or Die in Colombia

The Paramilitaries Burned Wayuu Children Alive and Killed Others With Chainsaws

By JAMES J. BRITTAIN

Colombia's civil war is a conflict between two and only two * principle groups; the people struggling for change and the Colombian state. No greater example of this can be realized than the recent massacre of several inhabitants of the Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó (Peace Community of San José in the Apartadó municipality of the Antioquia department).

The Comunidad de Paz was established as the first organically constructed and established peace community within Colombia that sought the existence of an alternative autonomous society surrounded by a raging four decade old war. San José's goal was to be a progressive community independent from violence existing apart from the armed activities and actors presented throughout the country. One of the principal founders of the historically significant community was a man named Luis Eduardo Guerra. Guerra, like all too many social justice-minded personalities within the Andean country, was brutally murdered on February 21st. His remains were found alongside Deyanira Areiza Guzman (Guerra's partner), Deiner Andres Guerra, (Guerra's son), Luis Eduardo Guerra, (Guerra's half-brother), Alfonso Bolivar Tuberquia Graciano (a leader/member of the Peace Council of the Mulatos humanitarian zone), Sandra Milena Munoz Pozo (Graciano's partner), Santiago Tuberquia Munoz and Natalia Andrea Tuberquia Munoz (Graciano and Munoz's children). The murderers, according to several eye-witnesses, were members belonging to the 17th Brigade of the Colombian army.

It should be noted however that this article does not seek to expound the atrocious events carried out by the coercive arm of the Colombian ruling-class but rather seeks to illustrate how, as according to Father Javier Giraldo, "there is no place for neutrality" within Colombia. As the Catholic priest states, "peasants who live where there are guerrillas are killed or displaced". On March 8th the Comunidad de Paz released a statement which stated that the community had been the recipients of "many attacks" such as "harassments, threats, beatings, bombings, murders" and now, "massacres". Nevertheless, the people of San José presented that "the will of the community is firm" and they are determined to maintain their "position of pacifist coexistence".

While many may applaud such a position, what in actuality does this moral outlook mean? As Giraldo (a devout non-violent liberation theologian who has been struggling on the front lines within Colombia for decades) stated, Colombians live in a black and white world, a society which is not blurred with grey undertones of reality. He imparts that there are two truths for people living alongside the guerrilla; death or displacement. In the March 8th release, the Comunidad de Paz argued that "we are not going to coexist with our victims"; therefore, subtracting death from the categorical realm of possibilities, thus leaving only one outcome according to Giraldo's premise; displacement. The Comunidad de Paz recently wrote that if the state imposes its militarized forces against them than they "are determined to move on" with their ideals in hand, thus giving rise to the latter of Giraldo's bilateral outcomes. However, is this all that is left? Is this all that the people in Colombia seeking social justice can do? Merely run or die?

Since 2001, the 2nd Brigade of the Colombian army (and members of the AUC) organized numerous devastating attacks, similar to that which took place in San José de Apartadó, against members of the Wayuu indigenous nation. On April 18th, 2004 paramilitaries (and soldiers) entered into the village of Bahía de Portete where a large majority of Wayuu peoples inhabited. On this date the state forces systematically "burned two children alive and killed others with chain saws". Jhony Valetta ("Wayuu Indians go to war against Colombian government: May 27, 2004 On-Line http://www.anncol.org/side/587) wrote of one Wayuu father's experience.

You can not imagine how it is to have to escape on the run so that they won't kill you, and then hear the cries of the kids, of my two little sons who they burned alive with out me being able to do anything. . . . They burned them alive inside my pick up. Also, they beheaded my mother and cut my nephews to pieces. They didn't shoot them, they tortured them so we would hear their screams, and they cut them up alive with a chain saw.

Following this monstrous act, Wayuu representatives made a domestic and international announcement which declared that they have reached a decision war has been declared. We are going to respond in such a forceful manner that they will have no desire to return to our lands. We will apply our own law, because the justice of the courts only serves to help them, the assassins.

Since this time an increasing number of Wayuu have become members of the FARC-EP, while others have organized indigenous-based self-defense movements working in a cooperative manner with other objectively devoted social movements seeking emancipatory conditions for their people. As a result, attacks against the Wayuu (who have chosen to defend themselves) have dropped precipitously since the spring of 2004.

Discussing the Wayuu is important for it brings to light another method of responding to state repression. It also brings one to ask why the Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó seeks to remain an open target for state-induced coercion by remaining a pacifist-based autonomous society. The Wayuu have in the past year demonstrated that material measures of security are a positive response to state expansionist and reactionary goals. Conversely, the Comunidad de Paz has stated that they are committed to their principle of one-sided non-violence.

As the Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó tries to cope with their tremendous loss and regain some sense of peace and positive memory they must decide if death or displacement is all they have to look forward to. Are they going to stay 'vigilant' in their morals and run every time the state instills its military prowess or will they head the words that are only too prevalent and truthful within Colombia; "there is no place for neutrality". In order to do more than merely subsist, the people of San José must respond to their oppression with more than immaterial ideals. They must abide by their morality and know that they can materially respond to oppression and, like the Wayuu, defend their morality through objective justice.

Source (http://www.counterpunch.org/brittain03122005.html)

[RedSonRising]

I am not refuting the active propaganda onslaught by the Colombian ruling class against the FARC nor the paramilitaries heinous crimes (which I consider worse than the FARC), but it is obvious they perpetuate the violence and the interviews clearly imply coercion over choice in guerrilla matters. Where is the socialism? I fail to see any importance the organization has to justify such turmoil. Unless you can somehow disprove the firsthand accounts me and my family have witnessed, as a Colombian and revolutionary I cannot simply give the FARC the benefit of the doubt and simply assume/hope it's all propaganda. Hopefully they either reform, disarm, or become connected to a genuine resistance movement.

[Starport]

This is what lenin - the victor of civil war had to say:


"It is said that guerrilla acts disorganise our work.


It is not guerrilla actions which disorganise the movement, but the weakness of a party which is incapable of taking such actions under its control.


Being incapable of understanding what historical conditions give rise to this struggle, we are incapable of neutralising its deleterious aspects. Yet the struggle is going on. It is engendered by powerful economic and ‘political causes. It is not in our power to eliminate these causes or to eliminate this struggle.



Our complaints against guerrilla warfare are complaints against our Party weakness in the matter of an uprising.


What we have said about disorganisation also applies to demoralisation. condemnation and curses are absolutely incapable of putting a stop to a phenomenon which has been engendered by profound economic and political causes: It may be objected that if we are incapable of putting a stop to an abnormal and demoralising phenomenon, this is no reason why the Party should adopt abnormal and demoralising methods of struggle. But such an objection would be a purely bourgeois-liberal and not a Marxist objection, because a Marxist cannot regard civil war, or guerrilla warfare, which is one of its forms, as abnormal and demoralising in general. A Marxist bases himself on the class struggle, and not social peace. In certain periods of acute economic and political crises the class struggle ripens into a direct civil war, i.e. into an armed struggle between two sections of the people. In such periods a Marxist is obliged to take the stand of civil war. Any moral condemnation of civil war would be absolutely impermissible from the standpoint of Marxism.


We fully admit criticism of diverse forms of civil war from the standpoint of military expediency and absolutely agree that in this question it is the Social-Democratic practical workers in each particular locality who must have the final say. But we absolutely demand in the name of the principles of Marxism that an analysis of the conditions of civil war should not be evaded by hackneyed and stereotyped talk about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, and that senseless methods of guerrilla activity adopted by some organisation or other of the Polish Socialist Party at some moment or other should not be used as a bogey when discussing the question of the participation of the Social-Democratic Party as such in guerrilla warfare in general.
The argument that guerrilla warfare disorganises the movement must be regarded critically. Every new form of struggle, accompanied as it is by new dangers and new sacrifices, inevitably “disorganises” organisations which are unprepared for this new form of struggle. Our old propagandist circles were disorganised by recourse to methods of agitation. Our committees were subsequently disorganised by recourse to demonstrations. Every military action in any war to a certain extent disorganises the ranks of the fighters. But this does not mean that one must not fight. It means that one must learn to fight. That is all.
When I see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring “we are not anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla warfare”, - I ask myself: Do these people realise what they are saying? Armed clashes and conflicts between the Black-Hundred government and the population are taking place all over the country. This is an absolutely inevitable phenomenon at the present stage of development of the revolution. The population is spontaneously and in an unorganised way-and for that very reason often in unfortunate and undesirable forms-reacting to this phenomenon also by armed conflicts and attacks. I can understand us refraining from Party leadership of this spontaneous struggle in a particular place or at a particular time because of the weakness and unpreparedness of our organisation. I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world.
It is said that guerrilla warfare brings the class-conscious proletarians into close association, with degraded, drunken riff-raff. That is true. But it only means that the party of the proletariat can never regard guerrilla warfare as the only, or even as the chief, method of struggle; it means that this method must be subordinated to other methods, that it must be commensurate with the chief methods of warfare, and must be ennobled by the enlightening and organising influence of socialism. And without this latter condition, all, positively all, methods of struggle in bourgeois society bring the proletariat into close association with the various non-proletarian strata above and below it and, if left to the spontaneous course of events, become frayed, corrupted and prostituted. Strikes, if left to the spontaneous course of events, become corrupted into “alliances”, agreements between the workers and the masters against the consumers, Parliament becomes corrupted into a brothel, where a gang of bourgeois politicians barter wholesale and retail “national freedom”, “liberalism”, “democracy”, republicanism, anti-clericalism, socialism and all other wares in demand. A newspaper becomes corrupted into a public pimp, into a means of corrupting the masses, of pandering to the low instincts of the mob, and so on and so forth. Social-Democracy knows of no universal methods of struggle, such as would shut off the proletariat by a Chinese wall from the strata standing slightly above or slightly below it.
That being so - and it is undoubtedly so - the Social-Democrats must absolutely make it their duty to create organisations best adapted to lead the masses in these big engagements and, as far as possible, in these small encounters as well. In a period when the class struggle has become accentuated to the point of civil war, Social-Democrats must make it their duty not only to participate but also to play the leading role in this civil war. The Social-Democrats must train and prepare their organisations to be really able to act as a belligerent side which does not miss a single opportunity of inflicting damage on the enemy’s forces.
This is a difficult task, there is no denying. It cannot be accomplished at once. Just as the whole people are being retrained and are learning to light in the course of the civil war, so our organisations must be trained, must be reconstructed in conformity with the lessons of experience to be equal to this task.
We have not the slightest intention of foisting on practical workers any artificial form of struggle, or even of deciding from our armchair what part any particular form of guerrilla warfare should play in the general course of the civil war in Russia. We are far from the thought of regarding a concrete assessment of particular guerrilla actions as indicative of a trend in Social-Democracy. But we do regard it as our duty to help as far as possible to arrive at a correct theoretical assessment of the new forms of struggle engendered by practical life. We do regard it as our duty relentlessly to combat stereotypes and prejudices which hamper the class-conscious workers in correctly presenting a new and difficult problem and in correctly approaching its’ solution."

[Homo Songun]

Your Skepticism is amazing. I provide evidence, and you say there is no evidence for the evidence, and then use the presumptive logic that they would not do this because it is "against guerrilla doctrine."

Is there any evidence against any of these things happening? Bourgeois media exaggerates, spins, fabricates, but hardly to the extent that you see the reporting on this activity. What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe the FARC engages in such undesirable practices?

Even though the context of each violent incident is unclear, what I have tried to present is that throughout collected reports, firsthand accounts and visible displacement acknowledged by these victims, the evidence is sufficient to assert that the FARC harm the rural population on several levels, and their lack of any social or political link to any significant portion of the oppressed population makes them unqualified for genuine revolutionary support. Please outline your requirements for credible evidence.

Here is a series of interviews with farmers in the countryside specifically talking about how the violence in the war, particularly the widespread use of landmines (which is a huge problem in the country) have hurt the rural workers without any sort of popular integration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlhxLSbmQO8

I am sorry to say that you have completely misunderstood my point. When I said this:


The real issue is, do these kinds of atrocities make any sense according to guerrilla war doctrine? It does not. Of course, that is not proof that the FARC isn't responsible, but it indicates that FARC doesn't have a profitable motive for such actions. On the other hand, these kinds of atrocities make perfect sense from a counter-insurgency perspective.I was merely pointing out that the FARC have nothing to gain from destroying their support base. Additionally, I pointed out that it is the inverse for those forces antagonistic to the FARC. What I did not do is weigh in on the validity of the various reports you mentioned. If you look very carefully over my posts so far, you will see that I haven't denied a single one of your examples. The truth is, I don't care to. I have nothing to say about them, because the fundamental situation in Colombia is not contingent on them, any more than Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a socialist has any bearing on his administration's economic policy.

As to the specific allegations or propaganda items which you have so dutifully relayed here, I would simply refer you to capable scholars like James J. Brittain, James Petras, Noam Chomsky and others, who have done a much more thorough debunking of the various well-worn themes you bring up than I could ever do.

[Ol' Dirty]

Are you seriously saying that FARC doesn't kidnap people and sell coke? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. "Genuine revolutionaries" don't hustle coke just to get by or tie bystanders up in shacks to extort money. Thugs do that.

And these people aren't communists: they're thugs in red.

[cska]

Are you seriously saying that FARC doesn't kidnap people and sell coke? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. "Genuine revolutionaries" don't hustle coke just to get by or tie bystanders up in shacks to extort money. Thugs do that.

And these people aren't communists: they're thugs in red.

Ooh crazy thread necro. They don't sell coke. They tax those who sell it. And they kidnap rich people because they need income to continue fighting a fascist government that gets massive support from the U.S.

[KurtFF8]

Are you seriously saying that FARC doesn't kidnap people and sell coke? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. "Genuine revolutionaries" don't hustle coke just to get by or tie bystanders up in shacks to extort money. Thugs do that.

And these people aren't communists: they're thugs in red.

Are you seriously saying that the FARC "sells coke"?

Have a source for that?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think Ol' Dirty is vastly misunderstanding the clear difference between coca cultivation & the development of cocaine. They tax coca farmers who make coca plants which is used for various different reasons. But, when cocaine is developed, which it's pretty easy to tell whether or not a peasant is developing cocaine, then they're punished for such. I really want to see a source for this person's claim.

[GreenCommunism]

the farc punish peasants who make coke? to be honest, i don't see why farc wouldn't sell coke themself, it would create more revenues.

[KurtFF8]

the farc punish peasants who make coke? to be honest, i don't see why farc wouldn't sell coke themself, it would create more revenues.

You don't know much about the world of drug trafficking do you?

The FARC is there to help protect and represent the peasantry of Colombia. Why would they want to push that group (the peasantry) more into that world?

The FARC isn't some narcobourgeois group looking out for higher revenues, they are looking for socialist revolution in Colombia.

[GreenCommunism]

You don't know much about the world of drug trafficking do you?

The FARC is there to help protect and represent the peasantry of Colombia. Why would they want to push that group (the peasantry) more into that world?

The FARC isn't some narcobourgeois group looking out for higher revenues, they are looking for socialist revolution in Colombia.

they would be able to buy better guns etc. that was my point, they already kidnap people. i feel that selling coke is less bad than kidnapping people, just value judgement.

[The Vegan Marxist]

they would be able to buy better guns etc. that was my point, they already kidnap people. i feel that selling coke is less bad than kidnapping people, just value judgement.

They're not just kidnapping people. No offense, but do you take everything you hear on mainstream news as legit, especially when it's about FARC? The people they kidnap are military officials, politicians, right-wing representatives, etc. Not just people. The vast majority of Colombia is working class & peasants. You think that FARC is going to get anywhere if they kidnapped working class people or peasants? Hell no! The people they kidnap is strictly of the bourgeois. Also, they're able to acquire guns the way of guerrilla warfare. Shoot, kill, confiscate weapons.

[Ol' Dirty]

From 2000, but still relavent.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/51/colombia.html



FARC's policy, (wrongly) is to levy taxes on the drug producers, as it does on other rich landowners in the areas that it controls. A revolutionary socialist policy, in contrast, would include a programme of land reform, based upon expropriation of the large estates and distribution of land to the peasants, and the driving out of the drug traffickers and their backers. It would be possible, by linking such a movement to the struggles of the workers in the cities, to overthrow the Colombian regime and establish a workers' and peasants' government. Such a government would need to implement a democratic socialist plan of production for industry and agriculture and appeal to the working class of North and South America for support, with the aim of establishing a Socialist Federation of North, South and Central America. This is the only way to resolve the problems of the peasants, the small farmers and the working class and solve the drug problem.


http://www.socialismtoday.org/images/arrow.gif (http://www.socialismtoday.org/51/colombia.html#top) The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

FARC HAS WON significant support from a section of young people and the oppressed layers who are desperate to fight the existing regime, and who have suffered at the hands of the army and the death squads. Indeed, one criticism made of FARC is that it recruits people as young as 14 or 15 into its ranks. Even this, however, is a comment on the misery faced by many young people who are savaged by capitalism, with one million children, for example, being exploited as cheap labour working in the mines. Confronted with this issue, Simon Trinidad of FARC argues that most of those of this age 'who want to join, we tell to go home. But for instance, we had a 14 year-old girl from San Vicente who wanted to join. Her mother implored her to go back. Then it turned out that she worked in a bar and was forced to be a prostitute for the customers. Now she has respect, a uniform, an education'.

At the same time FARC, because of its incorrect methods, its failure to advance a revolutionary socialist programme, and its involvement with the drugs industry, has also alienated big sections of the working class and urban population.

Even in countries where the working class only forms a minority of the population it still has the leading role to play in the socialist revolution, because of its collective consciousness and ability to act as a class. It can win support for its programme amongst the poor peasants and the middle class, who are also exploited by capitalism and landlordism, and the poor peasants in the countryside can play an important role in the revolution through the conducting of a revolutionary war, if their struggle is linked to the leading role of the working class in the cities. But the building of socialism requires the conscious and active participation of the working class.


Unfortunately, the FARC leadership does not accept these ideas and the military campaign in the countryside has assumed a primary role in relation to the movement in the cities. Like other guerrilla organisations, the FARC leaders view their army as a substitute for a conscious mass movement. This is reflected in the structures of FARC and the methods used in administering the areas they control. In these areas the FARC undoubtedly enjoys broad support but there is not a democratic system of workers' and peasants' democracy. The military commanders rule arbitrarily. Yet even in conditions of war, a revolutionary socialist movement would establish democratic control by the workers and peasants over its own army.



http://www.socialismtoday.org/images/arrow.gif (http://www.socialismtoday.org/51/colombia.html#top) A new phase of Latin American struggle
FOLLOWING THE COLLAPSE of the former Stalinist states in Eastern Europe and the USSR other guerrilla forces in Latin America have increasingly embraced the market. Although it has maintained some 'socialistic' features in the areas it controls - with Che Guevara murals and red flags still used - FARC too have partly done this, organising visits to negotiate with European business representatives and not mentioning socialism in their propaganda. In other Latin American countries, this process has allowed some former guerrilla organisations to make their peace with capitalism and join the 'political process'. In Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, El Salvador and other countries some former guerrillas are now members of parliament and even hold ministerial positions.


The FARC recently launched a political organisation, the Movimiento Bolivarian por la Nueva Colombia (The Bolivarian Movement for a New Colombia). The movement takes its name from Simon Bolivar, the revolutionary leader of the early-19th century independence movement, which liberated the five Andean countries from Spanish control. FARC's new political front partly echoes the 'Bolivarian' ideas defended by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. These ideas do not challenge the capitalist system, but for the exploited masses they signify opposition to the programme of neo-liberalism and a rejection of the effects of capitalism. They represent a new phase of radical populism which has developed in the 1990s, a form of consciousness which reflects the set-backs to the workers' movement and socialist ideas following the collapse of Stalinism after 1989.

The 'Movimiento Bolivarian' demands social justice, a genuine redistribution of income, national sovereignty and independence, and the defence of human rights. It demands the application of new technology for national development and for income from oil to be invested in the rural areas, industry, education, and housing. It argues for the unity of the Latin American people against their common enemy, in the 'Bolivarian spirit'. It is this 'Bolivarian spirit', of uniting Latin America as an alternative to Western imperialism, that has been put forward by Chavez. To succeed in uniting Latin America, however, would require the overthrow of the different ruling classes, each with their own national interests, and therefore the establishment of a socialist federation of the continent.

The radical petty-bourgeois nationalist programme of the 'Movimiento Bolivarian', however, articulates many of the demands of the exploited masses but does not attempt to break from capitalism. Yet the crisis confronting Colombia, in all its aspects, means that this programme cannot be achieved within the framework of capitalism.

The drugs problem, for example, is intricately bound up with the general social crisis that has developed under capitalism. Moreover, FARC itself is implicated in the drugs industry. Although FARC maintains that its forces are not directly involved in trafficking, it allows traffickers to operate in its areas and imposes a tax on the drug cartels. An estimated 60% of FARC's income comes from this source.

This, together with the methods of 'urban terrorism' and kidnappings that FARC has used, has undoubtedly alienated sections of the urban working class. Following years of slaughter and conflict there is a desire for peace and an end to the violence. This was reflected in the mass demonstration of five million people last year in support of the peace process. The methods of FARC, however, have meant that they have been unable to lay the blame for the violence clearly at the feet of the capitalist state, the right-wing death squads and US imperialism, and have not won mass support from the urban population.

Moreover, FARC has stood aside from some of the recent movements that encompassed big layers of the working class in the cities. Twelve public sector general strikes took place in Colombia during 1998-99, in protest at the austerity packages that the government has implemented. FARC largely abstained from these movements.


Seeing that this thread has been pretty active, I'm glad I necroed it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

From 2000, but still relavent.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/51/colombia.html


Seeing that this thread has been pretty active, I'm glad I necroed it.

SocialismToday is wrong. How about reading from someone that's actually walked with FARC for quite a while, like James Britain.

[Crux]

I've met a member of the Partido Communista Clandestino de Colombia, she held a very interesting and informative lecture on colombian history, but as for the present policy of FARC-EP/PCCC, although she seemed pretty decent politically actually rasing some crticism over the viability of some of the tactics of FARC such as the "revolutionary tax" (kidnappings), she didn't say anything that would alter my view on the FARC-EP.

So, The Vegan Marxist, instead of just saying "SocialismToday is wrong" perhaps you should try to argue your point?

[GreenCommunism]

They're not just kidnapping people. No offense, but do you take everything you hear on mainstream news as legit, especially when it's about FARC? The people they kidnap are military officials, politicians, right-wing representatives, etc. Not just people. The vast majority of Colombia is working class & peasants. You think that FARC is going to get anywhere if they kidnapped working class people or peasants? Hell no! The people they kidnap is strictly of the bourgeois. Also, they're able to acquire guns the way of guerrilla warfare. Shoot, kill, confiscate weapons.

sorry man, i just didn't know. i am far from someone who take mainstream news as legit, i just thought they did kidnap people whom they could get money for. why did they kidnap ingrid for example? wasn't she leftist? with more and better guns they could obtain more and better guns! selling coke to the usa just isn't something i would consider wrong for a terrorist organisation. but i have strong anti-prohibition views though.

Edit: she's a green.

[Ol' Dirty]

SocialismToday is wrong. How about reading from someone that's actually walked with FARC for quite a while, like James Britain.

Christ almighty, why are you so intent on supporting them when it's so obvious that something's wrong with them? I wasn't at the Krondstadt rebellion, but I know that I support them over the Bolsheviks any day. The EZLN is content to stay poor but continue to struggle against the corrupt collaborationist Mexican govt. Why not FARC? The FARC has some nerve saying that they're trying to uplift Columbian workers and peasant's while simultaneously hustling coke.

[KurtFF8]

Christ almighty, why are you so intent on supporting them when it's so obvious that something's wrong with them? I wasn't at the Krondstadt rebellion, but I know that I support them over the Bolsheviks any day. The EZLN is content to stay poor but continue to struggle against the corrupt collaborationist Mexican govt. Why not FARC? The FARC has some nerve saying that they're trying to uplift Columbian workers and peasant's while simultaneously hustling coke.

The problem here is that you're assuming that there's something "obviously" wrong with the FARC-EP here. I'm not quite sure what you're basing that on, where as it seems that Vegan Marxists, and other posters like myself are basing our defense of them from attacks like the post I'm quoting right here are based off of James Britain's book that is one of the most extensive studies on the FARC-EP in the English language.

His book thoroughly debunks myths about the FARC that even Leftists (like yourself) are perpetuating.

Can you bother to point to evidence that the FARC "hustles coke"? A lot of us have been asking for a source on this and have yet to receive it, while we cite an entire book devoted to studying these questions and debunking these myths.

[Hiero]

Christ almighty, why are you so intent on supporting them when it's so obvious that something's wrong with them? I wasn't at the Krondstadt rebellion, but I know that I support them over the Bolsheviks any day. The EZLN is content to stay poor but continue to struggle against the corrupt collaborationist Mexican govt. Why not FARC? The FARC has some nerve saying that they're trying to uplift Columbian workers and peasant's while simultaneously hustling coke.

I don't think Old Dirt Basterd minded who was "hustling coke" into the USA.

There is a class reality to cocaine production in South America. For one, cocoa production and use of cocoa has existed long before the colonialists. Secondly the current cocoa farmers in Colombia are poor peasants who have been pushed of fertile land by the right-wing paramilities and pushed into the jungle. Cociane production exists in Colombia because the landed bourgeioisie have confiscated land illegally from working peasants. In the jungle the only thing production that is possible is cocoa, and the biggest market for cocoa is the cocaine industry.

Communists should support the cocoa farmers in their struggle. Should we try to improvish their lives more because of the drug problems of the West? Cocoa will always remain in South American society long after imperialism.

FARC simply tax the cocoa farmers. If FARC took power they would confiscate the land from the bourgeiosie and then the cocoa farmers could return to the fertile land.

The end result of cocoa cultutiviation can remain the problem of the FBI and CIA. If they never supported right-wing dictatorships they wouldn't be in this problem.

[KurtFF8]

And, if we are to take James Britain's account to be truthful, the FARC has been one of the leading organizations in pushing for growing alternative crops to coca in Colombia to fight against drug trade.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've met a member of the Partido Communista Clandestino de Colombia, she held a very interesting and informative lecture on colombian history, but as for the present policy of FARC-EP/PCCC, although she seemed pretty decent politically actually rasing some crticism over the viability of some of the tactics of FARC such as the "revolutionary tax" (kidnappings), she didn't say anything that would alter my view on the FARC-EP.

So, The Vegan Marxist, instead of just saying "SocialismToday is wrong" perhaps you should try to argue your point?

Yeah, just ignore the fact that I stated start reading what James Britain has to offer, & rather the idea I just said "SocialismToday is wrong." :rolleyes:

[Ol' Dirty]

I haven't read this guys stuff, but the weight of evidence is still against FARC. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of their actions, so give me some more to back up what they're saying.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I haven't read this guys stuff, but the weight of evidence is still against FARC. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of their actions, so give me some more to back up what they're saying.

Read James Britain's work! The evidence actually disproves all the lies made against FARC.

[Nolan]

I haven't read this guys stuff, but the weight of evidence is still against FARC. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of their actions, so give me some more to back up what they're saying.

This is like a faith to you, isn't it? Go read up and don't post again in this thread until you've actually bothered to research things people have written who have actually spent time with FARC rather than spew what the media says about a faction they have interests in discrediting. Yes, we know they tax coca farmers and cartels. Nothing you've posted in your little ewarrior campaign is novel.

I'm not so gung ho about them as others in this thread are. I'm fairly neutral about FARC as a revolutionary organization, myself, but I support them in fighting the state and the paramilitaries, both of which kill far more people and protect the ruling class. Looked at through an objective lens, the FARC are just a less cuddly and bolder version of the Zapatistas, with a different ideology.

[Nolan]

Read James Britain's work! The evidence actually disproves all the lies made against FARC.

Well, what his work does do is break through the informational fog of war and challenge some of the hype. It leaves the image of FARC as simply thugs in the jungle running coke and killing people dubious at best. They're in reality just people disillusioned with the system that have decided to take up arms, not mercenaries for landowners and cartels like the paras. Clearly any such group will not be funded by those with money, and will most of the time have to resort to methods to fund itself that leave it vulnerable to media spin, e.g. kidnapping state officials and the wealthy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, what his work does do is break through the informational fog of war and challenge some of the hype. It leaves the image of FARC as simply thugs in the jungle running coke and killing people dubious at best. They're in reality just people disillusioned with the system that have decided to take up arms, not mercenaries for landowners and cartels like the paras. Clearly any such group will not be funded by those with money, and will most of the time have to resort to methods to fund itself that leave it vulnerable to media spin, e.g. kidnapping state officials and the wealthy.

:confused:

Have you even read his book on the FARC?

[Ol' Dirty]

I don't want to base my opinion on one person's inquiry, so it would be ice if you could find other sources too. But I guess I'll read the book if it so deffinatively disproves everything I've learned about FARC. Can I get it at a library or online?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't want to base my opinion on one person's inquiry, so it would be ice if you could find other sources too. But I guess I'll read the book if it so deffinatively disproves everything I've learned about FARC. Can I get it at a library or online?

http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Social-Change-Colombia-Direction/dp/074532875X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1285958918&sr=8-1

[KurtFF8]

:confused:

Have you even read his book on the FARC?

I think you misinterpreted the sentence you put in bold here, comrade

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think you misinterpreted the sentence you put in bold here, comrade

Ahh, I noticed my mistake. My apologies.

[Ol' Dirty]

Ugh I don't want to buy it. I'll look for it in the library. Could I have other links to people who feel the same way.

[RedSonRising]

Ugh I don't want to buy it. I'll look for it in the library. Could I have other links to people who feel the same way.


http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_ferro_Farc_y_coca_Caguan_es.html#fn1

This is a study done by a University Professor from Bogota which studies the political dynamics between the FARC and coca producers, and the changes in that dynamic over the years.

As far as kidnapping people go, I've stated before that my family has known people firsthand that have been kidnapped, for example one friend at random for being in a restaurant at the wrong time when the FARC seized the people there and forced them into labor before releasing them for ransom, or another kidnapped for ransom in the countryside. Neither being political affiliates of the Colombian State or members of the bourgeoisie. Books can tell you a lot about a country or a movement, but rarely the whole story.


(waits to be called a bourgeois infiltrator for contradicting literature praising the FARC)

[Nolan]

http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_ferro_Farc_y_coca_Caguan_es.html#fn1

This is a study done by a University Professor from Bogota which studies the political dynamics between the FARC and coca producers, and the changes in that dynamic over the years.

James Brittain is an assistant professor of sociology at Acadia University. He lived with FARC iirc and has conducted many interviews with rural Colombians.


As far as kidnapping people go, I've stated before that my family has known people firsthand that have been kidnapped, for example one friend at random for being in a restaurant at the wrong time when the FARC seized the people there and forced them into labor before releasing them for ransom, or another kidnapped for ransom in the countryside. Neither being political affiliates of the Colombian State or members of the bourgeoisie. Books can tell you a lot about a country or a movement, but rarely the whole story.


(waits to be called a bourgeois infiltrator for contradicting literature praising the FARC)

How do you know they were FARC? Did FARC make a statement claiming it? Would any of this stand in a bourgeois court?

[Nolan]

Ugh I don't want to buy it. I'll look for it in the library. Could I have other links to people who feel the same way.

Kasama has an article on FARC that cites a few different sources and other data:

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/29/colombia-the-real-farc-ep-inside-and-out/

edit: sorry if this has already been posted.

[RedSonRising]

How do you know they were FARC? Did FARC make a statement claiming it? Would any of this stand in a bourgeois court?

They told the captives they were the FARC, and they were in countryside area not far from more mountainous area.

Luis Francisco Cuellar was part of the Indigenous Social Alliance Movement and was killed in captivity by the FARC, and others indigenous rights activists were murdered in a massacre that was widely criticized and they got a lot of heat for it internationally. Murillo is a good author on the subject in his book Colombia and the United States: War, Unrest, and Destabilization. He points out the failures of Colombian democracy as a system of institutionally elite dominance, and documents the FARC's changes in command structure, policy, etc. over the last few decades.

[Nolan]

They told the captives they were the FARC, and they were in countryside area not far from more mountainous area.

Luis Francisco Cuellar was part of the Indigenous Social Alliance Movement and was killed in captivity by the FARC, and others indigenous rights activists were murdered in a massacre that was widely criticized and they got a lot of heat for it internationally. Murillo is a good author on the subject in his book Colombia and the United States: War, Unrest, and Destabilization. He points out the failures of Colombian democracy as a system of institutionally elite dominance, and documents the FARC's changes in command structure, policy, etc. over the last few decades.

I've been wanting to look into that book actually.

I suppose different wings of FARC are more principled than others.

[The Vegan Marxist]

They told the captives they were the FARC, and they were in countryside area not far from more mountainous area.

Luis Francisco Cuellar was part of the Indigenous Social Alliance Movement and was killed in captivity by the FARC, and others indigenous rights activists were murdered in a massacre that was widely criticized and they got a lot of heat for it internationally. Murillo is a good author on the subject in his book Colombia and the United States: War, Unrest, and Destabilization. He points out the failures of Colombian democracy as a system of institutionally elite dominance, and documents the FARC's changes in command structure, policy, etc. over the last few decades.

lol..they captured working class people...& told them they were the FARC..does anybody else see irony in this?

[Nolan]

lol..they captured working class people...& told them they were the FARC..does anybody else see irony in this?

While we can't rule out the possibility of it being paramilitary or someone else claiming to be FARC, saying that they wouldn't ever capture working class people is silly. In an ideal world they wouldn't, but we don't live in an ideal world.

[RedSonRising]

lol..they captured working class people...& told them they were the FARC..does anybody else see irony in this?


Only if one assumes the FARC is a vehicle of working class interests with no chances of degeneration over years of insurgency that can do no wrong.