Organization of Revolutionaries

[Faust]

Please do not post in this thread if you are going to try and change my ideas, or tell me how a revolution of this sort will never work. I asked this question for those who have similar ideas to me, I want them to give me an answer.

How do you believe that a MILITANT revolutionary movement would be organized?

I have in mind that there will not be any clearly defined borders or territories in a modern revolutionary struggle. "Terrorist" style insurrection is seeming more and more plausible.

Revolutionary cells would definitely be small groups. Maybe about ten men? at least until the movement grows. Would there be leaders? strategic councils? what do you think?

Having small cells would make it easy enough for the revolutionaries to plan and act. The small size of the cell would make it much easier to be democratic too. But having that sort of democracy in larger groups would make decision making slow and inefficient.

Anyways, your thoughts?

[革命者]

You'd have to weaken the army in all countries or you will create another profitable industry for those opposing you from abroad, at least on the mainland. Islands can be easier defended.

The armies could be weakened by guerilla warfare, by cutting funding and by infiltration.

I wouldn't use guerilla warfare in the first world because cutting funding is easier and always preferable. Infiltration is always a good thing. I'd start with the intelligence apparatus.

[Faust]

One of the reasons why I believe an insurrectionary war is the only way in first world countries is that fighting an actual war, with frontlines and all would result in swift annihilation by the state.

By having the people work covertly (in the first world, and elsewhere), taking out targets which will weaken the system and eventually bring about it's downfall, we can avoid the brunt of the state's military strength. They will not resort to dropping artillery shells and air strikes on their own cities. If they do, then they will do it in desperation. The last violent lashing out of a creature in it's death throes.

Starting with the intelligence apparatus would definitely be a good plan.

[bcbm]

in what way is a "terrorist" war plausible in the first world today? the complete failure of the urban guerrilla in the 1970's should have made it pretty clear that this kind of violent substitutionism cannot create a revolutionary situation. class society will be toppled by mass open revolt, not the clandestine operations of a few. the urban guerrilla can never foment open revolt because it leaves the majority of the population stuck in the role of spectator, watching the engagement between the armed parties. at best it can offer support to the combatants, at worst it will turn on them quickly under the influence of state and media propaganda. either way, it is not the primary actor, and this makes a true revolutionary situation impossible.

all of your basic assumptions in this thread have been proven incorrect by history. guerrilla attacks on targets that would "weaken the system" (what would those be?) will quickly draw the attention of the state to the group carrying them out and give them all the excuse needed to eradicate such a group. in effect, any attack will not weaken the state, but strengthen it. you also cannot grow the "movement" through a guerrilla offensive, because the guerrilla is ultimately a measure of the failure of the movement- it only occurs when a strong offensive by the working class has been crushed, or when none exists at all.


Maybe about ten men?

what about women?


anyway, everything you want to know is here (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10416).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Three words. Red Army Faction.

If you truly wanted something like this to work, though, you'd have to somehow hit the organs of Capitalism (their army, their money and their 'head of the snake') without taking workers as collateral. I don't really see how this could be done, seeing as workers are the slaves of Capitalists everywhere - in government buildings, in banks and indeed in the armed forces.

[rebelmouse]

How do you believe that a MILITANT revolutionary movement would be organized?it is already organized. read news about insurrectionist actions and rebellions, about greek guerrilla groups, etc. I have lack of info about south america, but I think in chile there are also anarchist guerrilla groups.

in any case, I am disagreed with bcbm about this topic. and in the end, it is question do we really everybody believe in spreading of revolution in this way? many people have many different needs and reasons why they participate in attacks against the state. I believe that armed guerrilla group should act in their name and not in the name of whole society. mostly our movement is created from students, so I don't think it could be possible to spread idea of armed attacks even among our groups. some people will take risk, some people will not. we are not all the same.

but how I imagine militant group?
I imagine them as ordinary people who participate in society and from time to time they make actions against the state. if they are illegal, if they must hide themselves, then they must learn to live in the nature and fight in the cities. they must have connections with avarage criminals (big ones are right hand of secret agency) to buy weapons or they must steal it from military objects. it is not so hard, anti war activists in sweden destroyed weapon in military object, whole 10 minutes nobody came after they broke the door. but they didn't want to steal and run away, they waited to be arrested and in the meantime they destroyed, with hammer, granade launchers and other things. in any case, guerrilla group alone must decide what they prefer to attack, will they eliminate people or just destroy property, etc. some mlitants groups are destroying property with activating of bomb, some groups eliminate prosecutors, judges, industrialists and other figures of the state.
but for me, such actions would be damaging of ruling class and trying to crash the state, in the time of financial crisis, for example. I don't believe that workers will follow such actions. even our movement would not follow such actions because people are not everybody ready to take big risk. problem is that there are cooperators of secret agency who will spread stories against militants, so they try to isolate militants from the rest of movement.

and I would like to say that in Greece anarchists and communists are together in armed guerrilla group. so, example of anarchist guerrilla group was angry brigade in UK, but if people are not hegemonic, they can organized themselves even if they are little different in theory. if I remember good, members of 2.juni (anarchists) participated in RAF.

[bcbm]

so you believe that armed groups should only act in their own name and that it will not spread within the left movement, let alone to workers and others outside of it, but that it should be undertaken anyway because it will "weaken the state," despite the history of such groups in many countries across multiple continents that shows them to do the exact opposite? i'm really at a loss to understand your thinking here.

[MilitantWorker]

For the sake of working people everywhere I am here to try and change your ideas and tell you that a revolution of this sort will not work.

Who are you guys kidding? Are you guys twelve year old middle schoolers from Wisconsin?

BCBM has given you a very clear idea of why this won't work, and included historical examples..

To the thread starter I would ask-- Have you ever heard of or read about Blanquism? You guys are not the first with this idea, nor the best at pitching it..


In left-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing) discourse, 'Blanquism' refers to a conception of revolution generally attributed to Louis Auguste Blanqui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Auguste_Blanqui) which holds that socialist revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators.

Here's what Engels thinks of Blanqui and "your" idea...


Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a "man of action", believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution.

So you see, storming your local police station or bank branch with Molotovs will solve nothing. You and your comrades should form cells which go out and help workers understand their exploitation. When those workers go do the same with other workers they know, then you're building a revolutionary movement. Eventually, if you have a whole neighborhood or city of workers who are conscious that doesn't mean rise up and start a Paris commune. It means spread the struggle, send these minds to find other minds until every worker knows whats up with capitalism.

Then, maybe we can talk militant actions. And that means like a general strike...not RPGing your local recruiting station or any other nonsense in general that might constitute a "'Terrorist' style insurrection."

[bcbm]

from Wisconsin?

watch it...:glare:

[Ravachol]

The core problem of all those ideologies inspired by secretive armed action against 'capitalism' only is that the capitalism they seek to destroy doesn't exist. Capitalism isn't located anywhere physically in the form of armies, CEOs, secret service agents and state bureaucrats. Sure, these entities exist and are part of the modus operandi of capitalism but they are not capitalism itself. Capitalism is a set of ideas and pratices located in the logic of the institutions, social protocol and the mind of the people itself. You can't simply blow up ideas like:

Capitalism -> EXPLOSIONS BOOM! BANG! -> Socialism.

I'm not arguing against armed action itself, but I do argue against the worldview that armed action alone against representatives of capitalism will bring about the revolution.
Armed action can serve a cause (Ie. Anti-Imperialist action, defense of communities, defense of strikes,etc) but it is always a means to a bigger mass-oriented end.

Also, due to the nature of guerilla action, organising along mass-based class lines will be very hard, thus further degenerating the movement.
Armed action is only a viable option in combination with a strong mass-based class-strugglist movement and even then it's only of any use defensively or in a situation where all-out warfare with the bourgoisie and the state has broken out.

In this stage in the first world the highest priority is the awakening of class conciousness and reforging class-based communities. We need to confront the logic of this system and it's institutions by struggling against them COLLECTIVELY. 'Kickstarting the revolution' isn't gonna work. Note that i'm not opposed to armed action because 'the people will think it's bad' or whatever, mass media will demonize any class strugglist movement. But the main difference is that the hold of mass media, the institutions of capitalism and their networks will hold less and less sway with the people if they themselves parttake in the struggle for socialism (whether conciously as militants or unconciously as socialists-by-any-other-name by campaigning on bread and butter issues in a socialist context). Our subjectivities are formed by our everyday experiences and if we do not parttake in these struggles our only relation to them (Ie the armed actions) will be through the lens of the bourgoisie institutions and our information and opinions of them will be formed solemnly by them. The mass-movement is created by struggle itself and by parttaking in this struggle they create their own subjectivities and increasingly shrug off the logic of this system.

[MilitantWorker]

Capitalism is a set of ideas and pratices located in the logic of the institutions, social protocol and the mind of the people itself. You can't simply blow up ideas

very good sir


Anti-Imperialist action

sometimes...for example South African dock workers denying to unload Israeli arms, etc


defense of communities

again...eh...in most advanced state capitalist nations like your typical western state communities have a mixed class population...you can have anything from lumpen to unemployed to working to managerial, etc. I'm not sure what communities need to be defended? Even a project or planned apartment blocks have multi-class structure..


defense of strikes

indeed, sir


watch it...:glare:

lol...really from wisconsin??? hahha

[革命者]

A guerrilla is nothing more as tactic to fight an effective war with a few people, against oppression. While it need not be big, who says it will not be? It is more scalable than regular armies.

I think it should only be used if the situation of the people is one of such a poverty that it is warranted because no other way seems possible. This would include countries as Cuba, for example.

So, not in the first world unless there is real, great and absolute impoverishment; leading to many more deaths than now is the case. Hopefully we don't let it come that far, but if so, and that's the question of the original poster, we should use querilla warfare.

[Ravachol]

A guerrilla is nothing more as tactic to fight an effective war with a few people, against oppression. While it need not be big, who says it will not be? It is more scalable than regular armies.

I think it should only be used if the situation of the people is one of such a poverty that it is warranted because no other way seems possible. This would include countries as Cuba, for example.

So, not in the first world unless there is real, great and absolute impoverishment; leading to many more deaths than now is the case. Hopefully we don't let it come that far, but if so, and that's the question of the original poster, we should use querilla warfare.

As my, BCBM's, Intifada1988's comments on the nature of first world guerilla warfare already said, it's doomed to fail without a mass movement. It isn't a question of justification, anything that furthers the class war goes, but it HAS to serve the ends of a classless society. If not, it's not only counterproductive, it's just oppossed to the welbeing of our class.

[bcbm]

i'm hesitant about resorting to an urban guerrilla struggle even in the presence of a strong movement. the fundamental divide between spectator and actor still exists in this instance, and the guerrilla always develops its own logic separate from the movement. furthermore, the guerrilla is something the government can easily deal with. any "victories" had in the 1970's were due to inexperience; the state today operates in a permanent state of counter-insurgency and would likely prefer an armed party to mass revolt. this certainly seems to be what is suggested by italy during the years of lead... a more widespread revolt that occupied various physical territories (universities, apartment complexes, neighborhoods, etc) was transformed into a diffuse movement of guerrilla groups and quickly put down.

[革命者]

As my, BCBM's, Intifada1988's comments on the nature of first world guerilla warfare already said, it's doomed to fail without a mass movement. It isn't a question of justification, anything that furthers the class war goes, but it HAS to serve the ends of a classless society. If not, it's not only counterproductive, it's just oppossed to the welbeing of our class.And I agree. That's also why I mentioned the scalability. Both Vietnam and Cuba, for example, have proved it a workable tactic if supported by the people. An army takes too much organising to build up along an existing opressive state apparatus; an army. This would mean building that an army should be build up abroad, and while this may happen in a socialist state, it would be without the active support of the people and thus fail or be imperialist like the USSR. I am not for that.

But you should see it in context. The first world could (and I think will) face extreme and absolute impoverishment; Verelendung. Then, if the ruling class sustains its oppression of the people, use of force from below may be warranted and guerilla warfare would be the only viable option.

We must not let it come to that, and find and use all other means to weaken state opression first, but if all else fails it might be the only viable option.

[bcbm]

But you should see it in context. The first world could (and I think will) face extreme and absolute impoverishment; Verelendung. Then, if the ruling class sustains its oppression of the people, use of force from below may be warranted and guerilla warfare would be the only viable option.

We must not let it come to that, and find and use all other means to weaken state opression first, but if all else fails it might be the only viable option. the options available to us will be the options that have always existed for the oppressed and exploited- general strike, riot, insurrection, occupation. if there is mass resistance, then there is no need for the guerrilla. if there's no mass resistance, than the guerrilla is substitutionist and equally useless. it's a dead end.

some comments from italian anarchists:



For us the individual that rebels, the individual that revolts against this world that is too petty to contain his dreams, is not interested in limiting his own potentiality, but if possible, would extend it to infinity. Thirsty for freedom, greedy for experience, he who revolts is in constant search for new affinities, for new instruments to experiment with, with which to assault the existent and subvert it from its very foundation. This is because the insurrectional struggle should find stimulus and energy in our capacity to always fill its arsenal with new arms, outside and against any reductive specialization. The gun experts are like the book experts, or squatting experts, or any others; they are boring because they always talk and only about themselves and about their favorite means. And this is why we don't give privilege to any instrument over others, we love and support innumerable actions, use the most disparate means, that daily occur against the dominion and its structures. Because revolt is like poetry: and should be done by everyone, not by only one person, he who is the most expert.

Now, specific armed organization represents the negation of this insurrectional struggle, the parasite capable of poisoning its blood. Whereas insurrection incites pleasure and the realization of how much we have in our hearts, armed organization promises only sacrifice and ideology. Whereas insurrection exalts the possibilities of the individual, armed organization exalts only the technology of its soldiers. Whereas insurrection considers a gun or a stick of dynamite as only one of the arms available to it, armed organization turns it into the only instrument that it uses (“Long live the armed struggle”). Whereas insurrection looks to generalize and to invite all to participate in its party, armed organization is necessarily closed — except for its few militants — there is nothing left for the others to do other than to chant for it. Of that vast project that is the subversion of life, a project that does not know limits because it looks to shake up the totality of society, armed organization is capable of glimpsing only the marginal aspect of a military clash with the State — exchanging it for everything else. And therefore this clash, also the armed attack against the State, loses any liberatory significance, any breath of life, when all of its upsurge is reduced to the promotion of a program and an acronym that is bought in the market of politics.http://theanarchistlibrary.org/fullness-struggle-without-adjectives

[Faust]

I am not saying the revolutionary movement would be the sole force working towards the revolution. I do not believe that a small group of people can successfully create a socialist society.

What I am saying is that these groups attacks should be an aid to normal propaganda. If people are fighting for a cause, and can get the message out that it is a just and worthy cause, then class consciousness will subsequently rise.

A militant revolutionary movement would NOT be the only group working towards revolution. They'd merely be an aid to all of the other, peaceful or otherwise, groups which have similar goals.

I believe that it would work. If you look at all of the revolutionary groups in the past they have had specific problems which led to their downfall. Problems which could have been avoided, in my eyes.

[革命者]

I agree strikes should be used if possible, but if there are no strike funds, this will cease to be an option. Again, I don't think we we'll (have to) let it come to that, but the first world I am talking about is different from the one we have now; as long as the upcoming developing world comes to our rescue to make us work in their factories, I'd not talk of impoverishment; just enslavement by debt. If it turns so bad that we can't sustain strike funds, we should look for different options.

I hope we'll have found a way for violentless revolution, before then. But even a revolution needs to be sustained and that includes force.

[Faust]

I agree strikes should be used if possible, but if there are no strike funds, this will cease to be an option. Again, I don't think we we'll (have to) let it come to that, but the first world I am talking about is different from the one we have now; as long as the upcoming developing world comes to our rescue to make us work in their factories, I'd not talk of impoverishment; just enslavement by debt. If it turns so bad that we can't sustain strike funds, we should look for different options.

I hope we'll have found a way for violentless revolution, before then. But even a revolution needs to be sustained and that includes force.

A nonviolent revolution is most definitely preferred, but in first world countries where the government is slowly gaining a stranglehold on the people, with them still thinking that they are in a land of freedom and democracy.... then a revolution of a more violent type will be needed.

Funds will come from the attacks themselves, I suppose. A robin hood style funding system.

[革命者]

Now wouldn't be a good time to start any type of warfare. Not if we trade drugs or weapons for funds and not because we have better options here.

[Ravachol]

i'm hesitant about resorting to an urban guerrilla struggle even in the presence of a strong movement. the fundamental divide between spectator and actor still exists in this instance, and the guerrilla always develops its own logic separate from the movement.


Well that depends on the nature of your guerilla movement. Take, for example, a situation where a combination of factory lockouts, occupations, rent/utility strikes,etc are sustained for a prolonged period and the participants arm themselves as a collective 'people-in-arms' to defend their gains and simultanously (if tactical and collectively agreed upon ofcourse) carry out attacks on the institutions of the state and capital in order to weaken their grip over the rest of society and to aid potential insurgencies in nearby geographic areas. This would be a case of urban warfare (whether or not it's guerilla is a matter of tactics) where a large segment of the working class is the actor. Sure, some segments outside of the revolutionary zones are still spectors, but this goes for any action (Ie. a single strike has only so many actors). What we should strive for is the highest possible actor/spector ratio, it isn't a binary question where you have all spectors or all actors, it's an optimalization question.



the state today operates in a permanent state of counter-insurgency and would likely prefer an armed party to mass revolt. this certainly seems to be what is suggested by italy during the years of lead


This is true, but also a matter of armed tactics rather than an ideological matter.



... a more widespread revolt that occupied various physical territories (universities, apartment complexes, neighborhoods, etc) was transformed into a diffuse movement of guerrilla groups and quickly put down.

Yes, but the historical context makes it understandable. The continuous assaults on the Autonomist movement by fascists and state thugs gave birth to calls for armed protection (which is understandable and necessary in such a situation) but which later transformed in the desire for an 'armed party of the proletariat' as stated by segments of Autonomia Operaio, and that's where they went wrong and caused the schism between the mass movement and the armed groups.

[bcbm]

What I am saying is that these groups attacks should be an aid to normal propaganda. If people are fighting for a cause, and can get the message out that it is a just and worthy cause, then class consciousness will subsequently rise.

if you begin down the path of a "terrorist style" insurrection it doesn't really matter how good and just your cause is. the government will make it sound as insidious as possible, the media will run with that and soon any mass support you might've had has evaporated. there's better ways to disseminate propaganda than guns and bombs.


A militant revolutionary movement would NOT be the only group working towards revolution. They'd merely be an aid to all of the other, peaceful or otherwise, groups which have similar goals.how would they be an aid? who defines their relationship to the other groups? are they autonomous?


I believe that it would work. If you look at all of the revolutionary groups in the past they have had specific problems which led to their downfall. Problems which could have been avoided, in my eyes.urban guerrilla movements have been launched across a wide terrain of struggles, from places with almost no workers movement to countries with a strong, militant movement. despite this, the end results are universal.

but let's play with it anyway. what are some specific problems and how could they have been avoided?

------


I agree strikes should be used if possible, but if there are no strike funds, this will cease to be an option. Again, I don't think we we'll (have to) let it come to that, but the first world I am talking about is different from the one we have now; as long as the upcoming developing world comes to our rescue to make us work in their factories, I'd not talk of impoverishment; just enslavement by debt. If it turns so bad that we can't sustain strike funds, we should look for different options.if you can't muster the resources to sustain a strike, how do you expect to muster the resources to sustain a guerrilla campaign? anyway, i think the question of funds will be somewhat irrelevant by the time of a general strike. if we're talking about mass upheaval, then i think it goes without saying that food, weapons and other supplies will be acquired and communized.


I hope we'll have found a way for violentless revolution, before then. But even a revolution needs to be sustained and that includes force.opposing urban guerrilla struggles isn't the same as opposing violence.

-----


A nonviolent revolution is most definitely preferred, but in first world countries where the government is slowly gaining a stranglehold on the people, with them still thinking that they are in a land of freedom and democracy.... then a revolution of a more violent type will be needed.correct me if i'm wrong here, but are you suggesting that people are brainwashed now and that a minority undertaking armed actions will somehow wake them up?

-----


Well that depends on the nature of your guerilla movement. Take, for example, a situation where a combination of factory lockouts, occupations, rent/utility strikes,etc are sustained for a prolonged period and the participants arm themselves as a collective 'people-in-arms' to defend their gains and simultanously (if tactical and collectively agreed upon ofcourse) carry out attacks on the institutions of the state and capital in order to weaken their grip over the rest of society and to aid potential insurgencies in nearby geographic areas.well this is all mental masturbation, but i think once things have reached a stage where there are widespread occupations and strikes, then we're basically talking about a period of insurrection and by that point any institutions of the state and capital in the area will already be occupied themselves, or helpless to do much of anything. but assuming they're not, i think we're talking about something other than the urban guerrilla in the context its being used in this discussion.


Yes, but the historical context makes it understandable.perhaps, but certainly not unavoidable. it still proves the point i was trying to make. its not as though such conditions may not exist for future revolutionaries.

[Ravachol]

well this is all mental masturbation


Obviously, but I like that ;)



but i think once things have reached a stage where there are widespread occupations and strikes, then we're basically talking about a period of insurrection and by that point any institutions of the state and capital in the area will already be occupied themselves


Well, the problem is I think a stage of general insurrection and strikes will not be reached 'at once'. This obviously takes a prolonged period of sporadic struggles, intensifying and spreading throughout the social fabric. During this pre-insurgency phase radical occupations and strikes might be too sporadic or small to count on the institutions of state and capital to have succumbed. It is in this phase that the first gains of the revolutionary struggle will have to be defended lest momentum and morale are lost.

[bcbm]

Obviously, but I like that ;)

well in that case.... harder, baby, harder! :lol:




Well, the problem is I think a stage of general insurrection and strikes will not be reached 'at once'. This obviously takes a prolonged period of sporadic struggles, intensifying and spreading throughout the social fabric. During this pre-insurgency phase radical occupations and strikes might be too sporadic or small to count on the institutions of state and capital to have succumbed. It is in this phase that the first gains of the revolutionary struggle will have to be defended lest momentum and morale are lost.

if we're talking about defense, than in my estimation we aren't talking about the urban guerrilla as its historically manifested itself. if we were, then i think it's just going down the same dead end. you don't respond to the eviction of an occupation with a bomb, or by shooting a politician.

[MilitantWorker]

I am not saying the revolutionary movement would be the sole force working towards the revolution. I do not believe that a small group of people can successfully create a socialist society.

What I am saying is that these groups attacks should be an aid to normal propaganda. If people are fighting for a cause, and can get the message out that it is a just and worthy cause, then class consciousness will subsequently rise.

A militant revolutionary movement would NOT be the only group working towards revolution. They'd merely be an aid to all of the other, peaceful or otherwise, groups which have similar goals.

I believe that it would work. If you look at all of the revolutionary groups in the past they have had specific problems which led to their downfall. Problems which could have been avoided, in my eyes.

I don't care if all this is possible. It just isn't probable.

Look if it ever gets to a point where the struggle is so profound and the crisis so widened that people in first world countries are taking up arms against the state...you're not gonna need those guerrillas, their purpose is self-defeating.

Look violence will unfold on a time line something like this

Crisis (Now) > Widening Crisis, More Ruling Class Attacks (Consciousness Rising) > Festering Crisis, Staggering Inflation and Unemployment, Collapse of State Institutions (Workers are starting to organize, mass discussions take place) > Resistance to Capitalism (Strikes, Mass demonstrations, Mutualism, etc) > Working class takes political and economic power (Revolution)

it doesn't work like

Armed Resistance > Crisis > Armed Resistance > Deeper Crisis > Armed Resistance > We Win

[MilitantWorker]

Resistance to Capitalism will begin due to material needs. Remember that.

[rebelmouse]

auuuuuuu, now I understand why Faust said:

Please do not post in this thread if you are going to try and change my ideas, or tell me how a revolution of this sort will never work. I asked this question for those who have similar ideas to me, I want them to give me an answer........



bcbm: so you believe that armed groups should only act in their own name and that it will not spread within the left movement, let alone to workers and others outside of it, but that it should be undertaken anyway because it will "weaken the state," despite the history of such groups in many countries across multiple continents that shows them to do the exact opposite? i'm really at a loss to understand your thinking here. if armed group act in the name of others, it is vanguard. therefore I believe armed group should act in their own name because it is their decision to form guerrilla group, they didn't create goup after referendum about it in whole society.
I said why I think armed actions would not be spread in our groups: because people are not all ready to take a risk. that's quite natural (whole society will not participate in revolution also than part of society), but it is their "mistake", not mistake of guerrilla group. you can not blame guerrilla group because the rest of movement don't want to do what they do. the same case is about workers. although red brigades were supported by many workers. what is enough "many" workers, it is individual decision of all of us. those workers who were interested, they participated.
but the most important answer to your words is: it is personal decision of all of us if armed actions weakened the state or not. but in any case, I could ask in the same way like you: does one strike weakened the state? and if yes, how much? answer is the same as in the case of armed actions, it is personal decision yes or no and how much; and end answer is: should we stop to strike because it didn't end in revolution? it means: should people stop armed actions if it didn't end in revolution?

with this answer I answered to Intifada1988, but let's quote:

So you see, storming your local police station or bank branch with Molotovs will solve nothing.so you see, one strike in local factory will not solve anything, BUT people strike in any case. for me, every small step is important, but you would probably say it is so ONLY in the case of strike, and I will say it is so in the cases of armed struggle also.

therefore I think Faust said very good first sentence, because it is clear that we can turn around like this million times and it will not lead us anywhere. therefore I will not quote million things than it is better to say shortly: some people are agreed about militant and armed actions, some people are together disagreed with militant and armed actions. those who are agreed, as I see, are too much far away each from other, so.... nothing from it.
beside it, my material situation is so bad that I can't fund anything, and when someone is very poor and without right to work, he would need to make stupid actions to gather money (junkie actions: attack women on the street to steal money) to buy first weapon. therefore I don't do it, I believe only in taking of money from riches who exploit other people. RAF were middle class from Germany, they lived in west berlin, so they gathered money for first weapons. they didn't need to attack women on the street to buy it. immigrants in westb europe are in position like workers before 100 years, we don't share good life with west europeans, so as someone said: big crisis will bring people to revolution, but there are already immigrants who are in big crisis, many of us can't wait revolution of majority of society. if we wait, we will die hungry or from sicknesses which bring poverty. yesterday in south italy were big demonstrations, local people shoot african immigrants and immigrants stood up and broke everything in the city, but police repressed them and now all immigrants left that city. as you see, we are already in BIIIIIIIIIIIIG crisis. just some people who are middle class in west, don't see it or better said: don't feel it on their own skin. therefore they can wait revolution but there are people who can't wait.

and just to add, that I believe that in Europe, we are already in dictatorship which is open visible at demonstrations like in copenhagne before 3 weeks, in genoa in 2001 and later in gothenburg. people were preventive arrested in copenhagen, just because they express opinion. they didn't break the law. so, as you see, there will be bigger and bigger repression, even there are NO armed actions in scandinavia. demonstrations will not be possible anymore if it is big and against summit of world leaders. of course, small local demos will not be oppressed so much, because it is not so dangerous for system, and system will try to keep face of democracy. but I say: we are in dictatorship and the only effective way of fighting inside of dictatorship is: guerrilla actions.

[bcbm]

you can not blame guerrilla group because the rest of movement don't want to do what they do.

it isn't about blaming people for acting one way or another, its about examining their actions from a strategic viewpoint using history as a guide.


it is personal decision of all of us if armed actions weakened the state or not

whether or not the state is affected has nothing to do with your personal views on it. that's why it is a political and strategic question.


but in any case, I could ask in the same way like you: does one strike weakened the state? and if yes, how much?

one strike doesn't necessarily weaken the state, but it can be essential in getting the demands of workers met and thus builds class power. armed actions rarely build class power.


we are in dictatorship and the only effective way of fighting inside of dictatorship is: guerrilla actions.

you're able to post on this message board, which means you certainly aren't in a dictatorship. and there are certainly means for resisting dictatorship outside of armed actions.

[rebelmouse]

comic arguments, sorry.
when this forum become danger for ruling class, you will see what will be happened, dictatorship will become visible. in the meantime ask squatters in Freiburg/Germany what's happened on their peaceful gathering, I think 2006: police came and destroyed gathering. analyze demonstrations in genoa, gothenburg and copenhagen, you will see dictatorship every time when system smelled/felt danger even it was not soooooo big danger but system destroy danger in any case. for me, it was dictatorship. and so on and so on, there are many cases.


it isn't about blaming people for acting one way or another, its about examining their actions from a strategic viewpoint using history as a guide.ah, there is only one valid, correct, etc, strategy? as I said, what you say for armed action I can say for any strike. you can't just build class power and let workers to die in casamates, let authority to persecute immigrants, etc. therefore people build militant and armed groups, for protection of people, for international solidarity, etc. RAF was not only one, there were crowd of such groups in their time, all over the world. and they were connected, the same as strike of workers should be connected. I will never believe that we should make only demos when there is a war, killing and persecutions. if authorities don't kill you it doesn't mean they don't kill other people. why immigrants burned france, and during that time French could not understand why immigrants do it? your statement remember me on French, because you said there is no dictatorship while government made repression against peaceful demos in copenhagen, where people just expressed their opinion, just before several weeks.


one strike doesn't necessarily weaken the state, but it can be essential in getting the demands of workers met and thus builds class power. armed actions rarely build class power.again I can say the same: one armed action doesn't necessarily weaken the state, but it can be essential in getting the demands of armed workers/students/exploited met and thus realize already built class power. strikes build class power, but not always, it depends from case to case.
so, workers in serbia demand in strike that government make correct privatisation, so as you see it is not the truth that workers always build class power with strike. their strikes are reformist ones, but there are anarchists who participate in it in any case, with hope that during the time workers will become more radical. nothing come for 5 minutes.

point is: armed people have right to choose their method of fight the same as pacifist workers. strategy can be different and not only one. it is in the end again your personal opinion about correct strategy and what build class power and what not, and should all our actions be toward building class power and nothing more. armed actions are actions of those who already built class consciousness and they started fight against ruling class who persecute people. who says that all workers hated red brigades even if they stayed at home and didn't help them? I can be the biggest cower in this world, but in myself I can support Red Brigades and go to my job place without to say any word in support of them. point is: individuals feel weak against the system, they don't want to take a risk and confront with stronger enemy (the state), but if they are quiet it doesn't mean that they don't support armed group. many people say that all authorities are shit, but they don't want to go to protest against authorities because they are afraid to loose job or to be beaten by cops, or whatever. many people are like that.
so I believe that armed groups have much bigger sympathy among workers than we can see it. many workers hate riches and such workers are happy when someone attack riches.

[革命者]

The one thing we should never do at any rate is importing violence. So no army forces from abroad. Guerrilla forces from abroad are very fine if the only option left to the people is to use force.

Funds are not needed when you can acquire food and means of production, so that makes it very different from strikes. Even with a general strike the army would be send in to protect the means of production. Then we'll see who gives up first; the haves or the have-nots. The question obviously has a simple answer; striking is not a lasting option.

[Ravachol]

The one thing we should never do at any rate is importing violence. So no army forces from abroad. Guerrilla forces from abroad are very fine if the only option left to the people is to use force.

Funds are not needed when you can acquire food and means of production, so that makes it very different from strikes. Even with a general strike the army would be send in to protect the means of production. Then we'll see who gives up first; the haves or the have-nots. The question obviously has a simple answer; striking is not a lasting option.

How is the army going to function during a general strike? Are they going to magically conjure food, bullets and telecommunications resources out of thin air?
Secondly, the nature of revolution is more than just 'sabotage' of the old system. It requires the breaching of cultural hegemony and the development of strong class conciousness, which will most likely be a trans-national development (though not necessarily world-wide and simultaniously) and hence it is very unlikely that at the height of this development at which point the general strike takes place, there will armed forces from nearby to be sent in and it won't be likely that the army will be able to last very long, if large-scale defection hasn't already occurred.

It goes without saying however that the general strike and the built-up to it and the accompanying situation of general insurrection needs to be defended by workers' militias.

[bcbm]

comic arguments, sorry.
when this forum become danger for ruling class, you will see what will be happened, dictatorship will become visible. in the meantime ask squatters in Freiburg/Germany what's happened on their peaceful gathering, I think 2006: police came and destroyed gathering. analyze demonstrations in genoa, gothenburg and copenhagen, you will see dictatorship every time when system smelled/felt danger even it was not soooooo big danger but system destroy danger in any case. for me, it was dictatorship. and so on and so on, there are many cases.

i've woken up to armored police officers putting loaded guns in my face and in the faces of my friends, i've been detained, i've been arrested, i've been on the streets when they're showering us with chemical weapons and rubber bullets and concussion grenades. you don't need to explain such examples, i've lived through them. certainly the authorities are not hesitant to use force to subdue even the slightest disturbance, but that doesn't make this a dictatorship. i think its almost insulting to call it as such if we look at true dictatorships, where militants like us, and their families and friends, were simply dissapeared and left in remote mass graves.

what you're saying sounds a lot like what the weatherman, the raf, the red brigades and others were saying when they took the leap into armed struggle. i don't see why it would end differently today.


ah, there is only one valid, correct, etc, strategy?

of course not. that doesn't mean there aren't incorrect or harmful strategies.


as I said, what you say for armed action I can say for any strike. you can't just build class power and let workers to die in casamates, let authority to persecute immigrants, etc. therefore people build militant and armed groups, for protection of people, for international solidarity, etc. RAF was not only one, there were crowd of such groups in their time, all over the world. and they were connected, the same as strike of workers should be connected.

and as i said, where does this false juxtaposition of opposing urban guerrilla terrorism meaning pacifism comes from? i support workers, immigrants, etc defending themselves and they often do- collectively (http://www.sphere.com/world/article/exploitation-of-illegal-immigrants-fuels-italian-riots/19312704). none of the armed parties you're praising did much to defend people in actual struggle. in some cases they even killed workers. i'm familiar with their history and connections; this is why i oppose them. the document i linked in the beginning of the thread has a good examination of an anarchist guerrilla group in uruguay that pursued a better strategy than the tupamaros and their heirs in europe, at last argue for something like that.


I will never believe that we should make only demos when there is a war, killing and persecutions. if authorities don't kill you it doesn't mean they don't kill other people. why immigrants burned france, and during that time French could not understand why immigrants do it? your statement remember me on French, because you said there is no dictatorship while government made repression against peaceful demos in copenhagen, where people just expressed their opinion, just before several weeks.

repression isn't the same as dictatorship. if denmark were a dictatorship, the demo wouldn't have just ended in arrests or some police violence, it wouldn't have been allowed to happen at all and people would have been risking their lives to be on the streets. but to the first part- what are you arguing against? i've never said we shouldn't be active or militant, but that we should be doing so collectively and openly, not as secret, armed cells waiting for death or prison.


so, workers in serbia demand in strike that government make correct privatisation, so as you see it is not the truth that workers always build class power with strike. their strikes are reformist ones, but there are anarchists who participate in it in any case, with hope that during the time workers will become more radical. nothing come for 5 minutes.

all victories and even some defeats serve to build class power when the working class is acting as a conscious entity. workers making reformist demands are still making demands as workers that benefit their material existence.


point is: armed people have right to choose their method of fight the same as pacifist workers. strategy can be different and not only one.

it isn't about "rights," its about looking at how past strategies have succeeded or failed and learning from them. the lessons of the 1970's are pretty clear- the urban guerrilla, the strategy of tension, the substitution of the armed party for the mass conflict- these strategies don't work and are detrimental to the struggle.


individuals feel weak against the system, they don't want to take a risk and confront with stronger enemy (the state), but if they are quiet it doesn't mean that they don't support armed group. many people say that all authorities are shit, but they don't want to go to protest against authorities because they are afraid to loose job or to be beaten by cops, or whatever. many people are like that.

which is why we should struggle to address problems collectively instead of leaving individuals feeling weak. the armed struggle still leaves them as individuals feeling weak, they just have some other group to pin their aspirations on. better for individuals to find their collective strength and the ability to confront everything in their lives that oppresses them.

[rebelmouse]

How is the army going to function during a general strike? ..................and hence it is very unlikely that at the height of this development at which point the general strike takes place, there will armed forces from nearby to be sent in and it won't be likely that the army will be able to last very long, if large-scale defection hasn't already occurred.
It goes without saying however that the general strike and the built-up to it and the accompanying situation of general insurrection needs to be defended by workers' militias.

army will not have the same behavior in every country. I think in small countries soldiers are feelling much more like part of people/nation, so it is very hard that authorities would succeed to send soldiers against general strike. in big countries like USA, they can always send soldiers from east to the west, for example, and soldiers will shoot people if authorities say so. it was happened in history of strikes in USA. there is a book called Strike which describe all of it in USA. so, the only solution is that people do like in Albania: mass strike was happen, people broke in military objects and took weapons. what happen after it, it depends from consciousness of people.


posted by bcbm:but that doesn't make this a dictatorship. i think its almost insulting to call it as such if we look at true dictatorships, where militants like us, and their families and friends, were simply dissapeared and left in remote mass graves.there is something what I call hidden dictatorship, it was milosevic, lukaschenko, etc. they had parliament, but it was just for public, milosevic and lukaschenko decided everything alone. and they made brutal repression and eliminations of political opposition. so, when there is parliament, it would be called autocracy but in reality they were dictators. western governments are hidden dictatorships which serves corporations.
I think your understanding of dictatorship is equal with present values of western mentality that dictatorship is only in cuba, n.korea, etc. I rather think that western countries are dictatorship also, just more perfidious, they serve corporations, not ONE dictator. but methods of controlling of society and the way to rule, are the same.
I know it is not the same to finish in grave or whole life in prison, but practically it is very similar. our comrades all over europe serve 20-30 years punishments, so it is like burried alive. and political prisoners are tortured, secret agency make them problems in prison. etc.
but okay, you can say it is not dictatorship, for me it is dictatorship when people are arrested because they are not allowed to express opinion, they are beaten and imprisoned, etc.


what you're saying sounds a lot like what the weatherman, the raf, the red brigades and others were saying when they took the leap into armed struggle. i don't see why it would end differently today.I hope these groups will be renewed, created again, or with other name. in any case, all people who thinks in that way, they should read a lot about past experiences and methods of repression of the state and they must understand methods of work of secret agencies, they must gather money and private information about ruling class...

I understand that you are not against militant actions than you think, the same as many others, that we should wait to build mass movement and THEN to use militant methods against ruling class, but my conclusion about pacifism comes from the fact that such your standpoint bring us to pacifism in present situation (mass movement or better said mass strikes are future, not present situation). pacifism is very good for government which use violence on daily basis. and not only violence than wars (killing). but okay, I am not against pacifists, I don't expect from everybody to be the same. I don't think it would be good that all groups are pacifists. but you can build mass movement, you can print propaganda/newspapers, you can participate in strikes, you can do million things. militants don't stop you. explain to workers from beginning that all anarchists and communists are not the same, and workers will not believe in propaganda of the system against you on the basis that some militants did this or that. workers are not stupid, they don't believe to authority sooooo much. and if they are in contact with you, they can hear your side of story, not only story of mainstream media. so, armed actions don't make so big damage for our... let's say: build class power... part of movement, like some people try to represent it.
so, I am not agreed with next below, although you make your vision of strategy of these groups (for example: angry brigades were different than RAF):

the lessons of the 1970's are pretty clear- the urban guerrilla, the strategy of tension, the substitution of the armed party for the mass conflict- these strategies don't work and are detrimental to the struggle.greece is good example as opoosing to this what you said. they have guerrilla groups plus crowd of insurrection groups. and that's excellent for our movement and very bad for ruling class.


none of the armed parties you're praising did much to defend people in actual struggle. in some cases they even killed workers. i'm familiar with their history and connections; this is why i oppose them. the document i linked in the beginning of the thread has a good examination of an anarchist guerrilla group in uruguay that pursued a better strategy than the tupamaros and their heirs in europe, at last argue for something like that.
RAF did how much they could to attack american military bases in the sign of solidarity with people in vietnam. just watch pictures from their actions, for one group of people, they did very much. so I am not agreed with you that mentioned groups didn't help to the people in actual struggle. I will have to see that document where they killed worker but I would not judge them, anarchist before hundred years killed people when they robbed banks (bonnot gang in france) but if people gave resistance to robbery, if they served big boss in the moment of robbery, I don't care for them. nobody killed people without reason. any killing of ordinary people should be avoided, but you can't use one mistake to put finger on someone, it means that you hardly waited mistake. if I go on the street without to respect human life, you can put finger on me, but not if accidently someone died. you can drive car and someone can die. many people killed someone with car and they don't stop to drive car later, because it is clear that it was accident. who drive car 30 years, he will have a crash before or later. we are not computers. therefore I don't blame guerrilla if someone accidently died, but it must be really accidently. I think there was blaming of RAF for killing of soldier because of ID, I don't blame them: first because he was soldier, RAF are people with feelings and not computers. when you make dangerous action, only you know how you feel in that moment and how you react. people react different in the same situation. we are not all the same. but as I said, he was soldier, so I don't see why Buback should be dead but not a soldier.


which is why we should struggle to address problems collectively instead of leaving individuals feeling weak. the armed struggle still leaves them as individuals feeling weak, they just have some other group to pin their aspirations on. better for individuals to find their collective strength and the ability to confront everything in their lives that oppresses them.as I said, I don't say anything against mass collective actions and connecting of people, spreading of propaganda, etc. I am agreed that people should do it, but I am not agreed that we should just do it and nothing else until we build mass movement.

[bcbm]

I hope these groups will be renewed, created again, or with other name.

but why? they didn't work. they were failures and got a lot of militants killed. they didn't incite people to revolt. they hurt the mass movements of the time, if anything.


I understand that you are not against militant actions than you think, the same as many others, that we should wait to build mass movement and THEN to use militant methods against ruling class, but my conclusion about pacifism comes from the fact that such your standpoint bring us to pacifism in present situation (mass movement or better said mass strikes are future, not present situation).

you don't understand my position at all then. i'm not opposed to militant actions at any time, i'm opposed to urban guerrilla tactics.


greece is good example as opoosing to this what you said. they have guerrilla groups plus crowd of insurrection groups. and that's excellent for our movement and very bad for ruling class.

i don't think its very easy to view something on-going from an objective standpoint. it probably looked that way during the 1970's as well. we'll see, but i hope the groups favoring mass actions win out over the guerrillas. if nothing else, the guerrilla takes valuable militants away from the front-lines of the struggle and from positions where they can interact and organize with others and forces them underground.


RAF did how much they could to attack american military bases in the sign of solidarity with people in vietnam. just watch pictures from their actions, for one group of people, they did very much. so I am not agreed with you that mentioned groups didn't help to the people in actual struggle.

how did their actions concretely help the vietnamese in their struggle?


I will have to see that document where they killed worker but I would not judge them, anarchist before hundred years killed people when they robbed banks (bonnot gang in france) but if people gave resistance to robbery, if they served big boss in the moment of robbery, I don't care for them. nobody killed people without reason. any killing of ordinary people should be avoided, but you can't use one mistake to put finger on someone, it means that you hardly waited mistake.

this is the kind of insane logic guerrilla groups develop and it has no place in the communist movement. i don't think putting bombs in office buildings and killing workers is a "mistake," or at least not an excusable one. we can't build the power of our class by killing members of our class, accidentally or not.


as I said, I don't say anything against mass collective actions and connecting of people, spreading of propaganda, etc. I am agreed that people should do it, but I am not agreed that we should just do it and nothing else until we build mass movement.

you're still pushing the absurd idea that opposing guerrilla attacks and armed parties means only wanting pacifism right now.

[Lyev]

one point I try to remember is that rather than building a revolutionary movement outside of the masses (ie. the working-class, the people) and then this "revolutionary" minority taking this revolution and selling it to the masses won't work. It is not a feasible prospect that's at all conducive to socialism. The movement should try and come from within the masses. It shouldn't be anything external from it. The organisation of revolutionaries has to be the simultaneous organisation of the proletariat, the exploited and the generally fed-up.

[Tablo]

I believe the answer of whether this should be an option is in one of the writings by the RAF. They said that whether what they are doing is right is based on whether what they are doing is possible. We have found out that it is not possible so it is not right.

[rebelmouse]

Again we are turning around, but let’s answer, last post.


but why? they didn't work. they were failures and got a lot of militants killed. they didn't incite people to revolt. they hurt the mass movements of the time, if anything.For me, they worked about fight against ruling class. They did even excellent work, I was surprised when I saw pictures after their actions. For one group of students who became guerrilla, they did very much. Their theory failed and their hope that all workers will take arms and fight. RAF didn’t take in account psychology of people. I am totally disagreed that they hurt movement from that time. Authorities hurt movement even before RAF was created. RAF was created after repression, not before it.
For me, any worker/s have right to stand up with arms against ruling class, anytime, and not only in the time of revolution. People are not all the same, there are workers who accept exploitation, there are workers who will finish in mental hospital because of hard life and they can’t wait anymore. I remember very well when one worker in the train was nervous very much and made political conflict with other people, he was totally red from working on the sun and it was visible that he has hard life. Beside it, I hitchhiked very much in my country, many years, and many times when I spoke with drivers I saw how much they are full of rage. People hate politicians very much even they don’t go to demonstrations. Our demos would be much bigger if we publish good information when we protest and why we do it. Therefore I think that anarchists need own strong media, there are many amateur demonstrations where come small number of people just because people don’t have information.


you don't understand my position at all then. i'm not opposed to militant actions at any time, i'm opposed to urban guerrilla tactics.I understand, just I expressed myself wrong. or maybe there is different view what is militant and what is not, etc.


i don't think its very easy to view something on-going from an objective standpoint. it probably looked that way during the 1970's as well. we'll see, but i hope the groups favoring mass actions win out over the guerrillas. if nothing else, the guerrilla takes valuable militants away from the front-lines of the struggle and from positions where they can interact and organize with others and forces them underground.authorities always make bigger and bigger repression, it has nothing with guerrilla. You should read history of the state and of the law. Beside it, militants in Greece, beside breaking of banks, are using home made bombs to attack cop stations, so, using of bombs already bring them to the level of guerrilla. Therefore I think there is no strong line between militants and guerrilla in Greece. I know some people in the west, like one Marxist woman from Belgium, she speaks about ordinary demonstrations like that it was militant demo, but I am disagreed that it is militant when people are going on the street and shout slogans/paroles. For me, ordinary demo is ordinary demo, militant demo is when people use violence(for example: break windows and burn cars), guerrilla actions is when someone shoot, use bombs, etc. Maybe we grew up in different situations, for her, who grew up in peace, any demo is militant, for me, who grew up in the time of separation of Yugoslavia, demo is militant when people use violent attacks but still not bombs and bullets.

how did their actions concretely help the vietnamese in their struggle?international solidarity is not help? Concretely I help to someone when I eliminate those who can attack him. It means RAF helped to Vietnamese when they brought war to the west, plus: they attacked American military bases, they killed American military officers, they tried to kill NATO general in Belgium, they attacked Ramstein air base in Germany, they made rocket attack on the car of general of the US Army and of the NATO Middle Europe Section… statement: http://www.germanguerilla.com/red-army-faction/documents/81_09_15.html


this is the kind of insane logic guerrilla groups develop and it has no place in the communist movement. i don't think putting bombs in office buildings and killing workers is a "mistake," or at least not an excusable one. we can't build the power of our class by killing members of our class, accidentally or not. Okay, such logic has place at me, IF you ever attack bank you will see that it is not theory than alive action, in which you can’t foreseen all reaction of people when you make expropriation of money. You can plan one thing, it can be happen different. I said, I don’t care for workers of bank who served big boss in moment of action, for example if they try to stop expropriation or to catch people who expropriate money. I don’t see anywhere that guerrilla groups attack construction workers or workers on the land. Beside it, I believe that we can build power of our class if death is accident. you just repeat phrases 30 years well known. Such situations of death are so rare, that it is without sense to take it as argument against guerrilla. Even in the war, friend can kill friend because he thought he is enemy, it means it is accidental death. So, nobody blame anyone for such deaths, except those who must find something against guerrilla. I can tell you, in the time of revolution, surely, there will be accidental deaths. I will not blame person who accidently killed someone. It is not possible to foreseen everything.


you're still pushing the absurd idea that opposing guerrilla attacks and armed parties means only wanting pacifism right now.Opposing guerrilla is surely good for authorities, the state trough history wanted monopoly on violence for itself. While state realize violence, we should build class power. Funny, extremely selfish and egoistic, in harmony with developed egoism, it is developed from the side of capitalism. (That’s one of main reason why immigrants don’t want to be mixed with western people. I am 4 years in EU and all the time I see Polish with Polish, Yugo with Yugo, Arabish with Arabish, domestic with domestic, etc). but, why guerrilla exist in south America but not in Scandinavia? Because people get 2000 euro per month, they go to Tenerifa and other nice islands… As I said, even peaceful demos are destroyed by authorities and after it someone changed tactic in Copenhagen? Someone became guerrilla? Of course: not. They still get 2000 euro per month and they still go to enjoy. Just several days after authorities forbid them to express opinion in public places. Situation is good for authorities.
And let’s say: what’s happen after RAF and other similar groups were destroyed? Where is revolution after last 40 years of building of class power, from demos 1968 till today? I don’t see that building of class power succeeded what RAF didn’t succeed. Instead of criticizing each others, better to help each others. But how to expect help, when there are always some people who have personal interest that guerrilla become isolated and there is conflict instead of help?
Bcbm, as I said, we are turning around all the time, even this last post from you was repeating of the same questions from you, therefore I will not answer anymore.