Urban Guerrilla Warfare Is Counter Revolutionary

[The Red Panther Party]

In the 60s and 70s, the massacre in vietnam was at its height, the Black panthers were doing great things in the poorest communities, as well as being systematically destroyed by the pigs.

It was also in1969 that the SDS students for a democratic society split and spawned the counter revolutionary Weathermen underground, who famously took their name from bob dylans song subteranian homesick blues.
The weather underground bombed all sorts of institutions, but they got nowhere, all they managed to do is tear apart the SDS, get people shot by the pigs and destroy the grassroots millitancy that it took others so long to create.

Too many people love these counter revolutionaries. please stop and rethink before becoming an obselete "Urban Guerrilla"

The famous documentary on the Weathermen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7GSff4fIA

[Ravachol]

Urban Guerilla isn't the same as propaganda of the deed, which has a whole different theoretical body (which I disagree with).

[jmlima]

...The weather underground bombed all sorts of institutions, ...

Probably more lack of focus and waste of resources than anything else.

[The Red Panther Party]

The main point of this thread was the documentary 4 comrades have askedme to post so there it is, it is the best ive seen

Also, it was due to them being elite posh kids who just felt guilty, they dont even seem marxist, they dont mention marxist terms at all during their communiques and what not, they were fucking pathetic, though fred Hampton liked one of them, cant remember her name.

[scarletghoul]

You're correct about the Weathermen, but I don't think urban geurrilla warfare can be completely ruled out because of them. It can be successful in certain circumstances and when applied correctly and alongside attacks on other fronts (ie, political, information, cultural, economic, etc) and of course when the guerrillas have the support of the people.

Ireland is one example of a successful urban guerrilla campaign, where the IRA managed to fight the British to a state of strategic stalemate, and now their political wing Sinn Feinn has been able to gain a lot of power in the quasi-state thats devolving from the UK. The struggle is not over and you can of course criticise some of the decisions taken, but I think we would all have to admit that the military campaign has greatly improved the power of the republican movement.

Some ongoing examples would be Palestine and Iraq. Of course the differance between the urban guerilla work in Palestine, Iraq, Ireland, etc and groups like the Weathermen, RAF, JRA, etc is that the former have mass support whereas the latter were just isolated groups of radicals. Don't know much about the stuff in Greece right now, but that would seem to fall into the latter catergory aswell..

So yeah, depends if you have a mass base or not. Though I think a few well-placed 'propaganda of the deed' type actions could work to highlight certain issues and the far left's existence. But yeah

[The Red Panther Party]

Exactly, well put comrade. :)

[28350]

The kids had their hearts in the right place. They were just impatient and privileged.

[red cat]

I think that urban guerrilla warfare can become an auxiliary form of struggle. The main ruling class lives in the cities. So, militant action there would result in them calling their troops back from the rural areas, which will greatly aid the agrarian revolution. Also, such squads can be used to warn the urban government troops so that they don't fire on striking or protesting workers.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Ireland is one example of a successful urban guerrilla campaign, where the IRA managed to fight the British to a state of strategic stalemate, and now their political wing Sinn Feinn has been able to gain a lot of power in the quasi-state thats devolving from the UK. The struggle is not over and you can of course criticise some of the decisions taken, but I think we would all have to admit that the military campaign has greatly improved the power of the republican movement.

It is not often I have read such abject nonsense. The IRA campaign was a failure - the objective of the IRA campaign was to drive the Brits out of the six counties - the objective of the Brits was to have a 'strategic stalemate', what they regarded as an acceptable level of violence. The Brits knew they couldn't defeat the IRA and never set about trying to do it. It took the IRA leadership twenty years to realise they couldn't defeat the Brits and another ten to figure out a way of turning off the military campaign without the IRA splitting in a bloody feud.

SF have got practically nothing from the Brits - they caved in on 95% of issues and have acted to implement the neo-liberal policies of the extablishment in Northern Ireland. Currently SF is losing support hand over fist among the Catholic community (it doesn't have any in the Protestant community to lose) especially among the youth. It's dominant position in the Catholic community is on the wane and what power it has will be disrupted by internal difficulties and splits as it dawns on activists that they wil be no closer to their objective than they were forty years ago.

[Invincible Summer]

The thing is that armed struggle in itself cannot be the primary form or leading form of struggle - it must (as scarletghoul pointed out very well) be carried out in parallel with socio-political struggle to maintain its legitimacy. This is especially true in a more developed area (e.g. the first world), as armed uprisings alone would be considered domestic terrorism, whereas a more covert military struggle combined with open cultural/political/economic/etc struggle would lend more legitimacy to the movement as a whole.

What's interesting is that the two struggles may not even be related. If you look at the history of the Civil Rights movement, you've got militant groups like the BPP and BLP acting alongside (albeit not intentionally) people like Martin Luther King Jr. Similarly, during the People's Power movement in the Philippines, the New People's Army waged people's war on the Marcos regime while thousands of other ordinary folk went out on the street to protest - action on both the military and socio-political front is what makes a movement more effective, IMO. If nothing else, it creates a "good cop, bad cop" scenario where the un-armed protestors' demands seem like a better compromise than negotiating with "armed terrorists"

[The Red Panther Party]

The IRA won the south through a guerrilla war, your the one speaking abject nonsense mate

[Jolly Red Giant]

The IRA won the south through a guerrilla war, your the one speaking abject nonsense mate
You will have enormous difficulty finding anyone with an ounce of knowledge about irish history that would suggest that the IRA won the South through a guerrilla campaign. They may have fought to a stalemate - but they certainly didn't win anything. Indeed one of the driving forces behind the deal between the nationalists and Brits (on both sides) was to derail the class movements taking place in Ireland and Britain at the time.

[The Grey Blur]

The IRA won the south through a guerrilla war, your the one speaking abject nonsense mate
The deciding factor in the south was not the guerilla struggle but the strikes in Britain which made the imperialist war effort impossible. And that was obviously not what scarletghoul was referring to - he seems to view the PIRA in the same tradition as the RAF, red brigades etc which you rightly criticised.

These groups are useless, it's Maoism (a failed ideology itself) applied to the urban environment - it gives the state ample excuse to crack down on real workers' struggles and as (i think) Devrim excellently put it bombs don't choose sides in the class struggle. Trotsky destroyed these ideas of individual terrorism a long long time ago- a small band of armed 'revolutionaries' putting themselves above the organised working class isn't revolution, it's something the worker watches on TV. Yes some of these groups contained genuine revolutionaries but they succumbed to adventurism and impatience...this gun/maoist fetish is one of the worst elements of revleft, the stuff that makes me close a thread in despair at the stupidity.

[The Red Panther Party]

Also Eire has been resisting imperialism for 800 years, the nationalist people did to a certain extent support the "men behind the wire", yet alot were put off by the violence and voted for the SDLP, i think the tradgedy of the recent history of ireland is they way that reactionary PIRA became the peoples defenders rather than the people become their own defenders, but when you have the RUC, UDR British soldiers, loyalists and all these evil bigoted colonial forces oppressing you, you naturally look to those who will stand up for you.

When the officials refused to defend nationalist areas calling it sectarian they gave rise to the reactionary shamefein.

Im a critic of them yet im not wise enough to preach to the irish masses, let alone those fenian warriors we have here on revleft :)

[Chimurenga.]

The kids had their hearts in the right place. They were just impatient and privileged.

I wouldn't say their hearts were in the right place. They seemed to have the most basic understanding of Marx (just from what I've gathered) that you could possibly have. They realized going door to door, educating the working people of the US, and trying to build a vanguard from there (because they claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist group) was too much work and not romantic enough. So they did the most counter-productive things you could do, they blew up infrastructure and put people in harms way.

That must have been a frustrating time to grow up in, if you were trying to be involved politically, with people like them and the SLA. In my opinion, they were not revolutionaries (no matter how hard they tried to be) and they should not be glorified.

[The Red Panther Party]

Thats why Elridge cleaver and others split in the panther party from the seale Newton faction.

Elridge wanted to enage in urban guerrilla warfare but newton said it was reactionary and would only lead to brothers being killed, the panthers also said that all the weathermen did was get the working class massacred.

Fuck bill aiyres, fuck ruud, if you think you can have a revolution by bombing without the masses support your a fool.,

But to be honest, they did witness the millions genocidally massacred in vietnam, that shit makes you wanna lash out, if im honest the shit i see in iraq afghanistan makes me so angry i couldve done just what they did, though thats not excusing themof being counter revolutionary.

[MaoTseHelen]

Counter-revolutionary my ass. Revolutionary by definition.

[The Red Panther Party]

Counter revolutionary in the eyes of anyone who isnt a American teenage angst communist to piss off daddy type :)

the weathermen that is

[MaoTseHelen]

Revolutions are by definition violent. The USSR wasn't created with sit-ins. Pacifism accomplishes nothing besides giving security services more accurate dossiers and the cops an opportunity to crack skulls.

Grow up.

[The Red Panther Party]

Yeah cause we all know revolutions are created by small elitist groups who bomb courthouses and do nothing to mobolise or incorporate the working class into the struggle GENIUS!!

Are you for real, what are you 10

[The Red Panther Party]

btw im not pacifist, violence is to revolution what water is to fish

But your view of supporting dead end violence is so stupid it begs belief

[The Red Panther Party]

Ok then, tell me what positive impact they had on the US proletariat, all i see is them destroying the SDS, getting lots of people shot by the pigs, bombing institutions thus legitimising the image of communists as evil killers wich is reported in the us media, scaring people away from communism, not organising the working class, setting the revolution back decades .......

[Invincible Summer]

Revolutions are by definition violent. The USSR wasn't created with sit-ins. Pacifism accomplishes nothing besides giving security services more accurate dossiers and the cops an opportunity to crack skulls.

Grow up.

A small group of students that blew shit up while not even attempting to connect with the working class or anything like that is hardly a "revolution." I mean, I sympathize with their impatience and their anger but really... at least get a movement going with you so you don't just look like a bunch of hoodlums




snip


snip


snip

Did you really need to triple-post?

[Chimurenga.]

Revolutions are by definition violent. The USSR wasn't created with sit-ins. Pacifism accomplishes nothing besides giving security services more accurate dossiers and the cops an opportunity to crack skulls.

No shit.

[Delenda Carthago]

I think Greece is one of the few countries in the western world with urban guerrilla teams nowdays.

From my point of view,I dont think there is a such thing as urban guerrilla.Every single group has a different way to do things,different goals that they want to achieve even different relationships with the rev movement.

You cant compare a nihilist team like Revolutionaries Secht(GR) who targets the supporters of the system(cops,journalists etc) and who believes that there are no classes,just conscioussnesses with Red Brigades(IT) who was a full army of 10.000 guerrillas in a full scale war and believe that revolution will be done by factory workers.Its two COMPLETELY different things.The fact that both used guns dont make them the same.

Another example are small groups that do arsons with gasoline and vutane tanks and Al Queda.Are there both "counter revolutionary" cause they are "urban guerrilla"?

So,its weak diallectics to categorize "Urban guerrilla".Who?Why?What for?When?To whom?

[Raightning]

Revolutions are by definition violent. The USSR wasn't created with sit-ins. Pacifism accomplishes nothing besides giving security services more accurate dossiers and the cops an opportunity to crack skulls.

Grow up.
Just because pacifism isn't revolutionary, it doesn't mean by definition that all non-pacifist actions are revolutionary. The Weather Underground weren't counterrevolutionary because they employed violence, they were counterrevolutionary because of how they employed it and what the results of it were.

If I run out into the street and shoot a passerby in the name of socialism, does that make me a revolutionary or a counterrevolutionary?

[Jolly Red Giant]

When the officials refused to defend nationalist areas calling it sectarian they gave rise to the reactionary shamefein.

Bit of a myth has built up about this one - the split in SF at the begining of the troubles was primarily a left/right split promoted by the Southern state. In the period that followed the OIRA were just as active in 'defending' Catholic areas as the PIRA (significantly more so that I had ever been aware). For reference have a look at Hanley's book 'The Lost Revolution'

[The Red Panther Party]

Well my aunties husbands father was burnt out of his house and his mate who was in the officials said, what were we supposed to do defend catholics, thats sectarianist and we wont uphold religeous boundaries for anyones sake. believe me they were an absoloutejoke, they even let the UVF UDR people drink in their pups to try and get them to unite with nationalist working class, what a disgrace

[Andropov]

Bit of a myth has built up about this one - the split in SF at the begining of the troubles was primarily a left/right split promoted by the Southern state. In the period that followed the OIRA were just as active in 'defending' Catholic areas as the PIRA (significantly more so that I had ever been aware). For reference have a look at Hanley's book 'The Lost Revolution'
Theres an element of truth in both your claims.
The free state (specifically Fianna Fail) did help facilitate a left/right split and the sticks did stop engaging with Loyalist mobs conducting pogroms.
Indeed there were a few cases where they did defend certain nationalist areas from incursions such as when Joe Mc Cann died defending the markets but he was actually being sidlined by the Official Movement by that time as he was seen as too militant but of course when he died in a blaze of glory he was given martyrdom status.
But these cases were few and far between and its why the PIRA stormed to support in Nationalist Ghettos when it engaged and prevented Loyalist mobs ethnically cleansing Nationalist areas.

[el_chavista]

Well, there is a Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla by Carlos Marighella (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/index.htm), just in case...

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Armed struggle in the U.S shouldn't be discarded, but in actuality it shouldn't be employed due to the present circumstances. What should be done is to "serve the masses". For example, a genuine revolutionary party should offer a free program of re-education to the masses, give them free food, free medical aid, etc etc. In addition, a party must also engage in patrolling pigs and engage in shootouts if the pigs start. That by nature is revolutionary, not reformism or revisionism like some communists like to call it, neither is it economism. Its purely serving the masses. Its like Huey P. Newton put it, for their to be a revolution, people have to exist, people make history, thus with these survival programs the masses would be motivated and say "these brothers and sisters really care for us", and will join the revolutionary process. Then when their is a favorable and revolutionary situation occurring in the country, then the People's Liberation Army with the masses and the party should engage in a armed struggle and take political power away from the capitalists and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e socialism onwards towards our beloved communism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think that urban guerrilla warfare can become an auxiliary form of struggle. The main ruling class lives in the cities. So, militant action there would result in them calling their troops back from the rural areas, which will greatly aid the agrarian revolution. Also, such squads can be used to warn the urban government troops so that they don't fire on striking or protesting workers.


though it is true that the ruling class lives in cities, they also have mansions and such in the country side.

on the point of the agrarian revolution, i cant see much that would have to be done in the US if at some point there is a socialist revolution. Agriculture and Meat production are already industries. the only issue is who controls them. for the most part, owners of farms are not capitalists like the capitalists who make contracts with the farmers and short-end them on all of the deals. Food Inc. had an excellent point on that. The topic was chicken farmers and the Tyson corporation. Tyson signs a contract with the farmer and the farmer is supposed to pay out of pocket or through loans to upgrade their farms to increase production. the problem is; Tyson gives them drastically less than what it costs to updrage, forcing them into debt.

I am not defending private agriculture. my point is though, the existence of industrialized agriculture and meat production meaks it all the easier. as for the private farmer, they would probably fare better in collective farming.

Also, i have not ready any material on urban warfare but it is fact that most of the US population lives in urban centers. That is where conflict will arise. so long as circumstances are right, an urban guerrilla movement can work, and if a revolutionary army comes into existence, the city will be the focus of combat. Modern warfare is almost entirely centered around urban areas. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Afghanistan will contradict this but Afghanistan is also a HIGHLY rural nation. there are very few major cities.

[Robocommie]

Revolutions are by definition violent. The USSR wasn't created with sit-ins. Pacifism accomplishes nothing besides giving security services more accurate dossiers and the cops an opportunity to crack skulls.

Grow up.

The issue here is not the use of violence, so don't try and make this one of pacifists vs. revolutionaries. The argument against people like the RAF, the Weathermen, and Eldridge Cleaver's faction of the BPP is that this kind of action is counter-productive.

Violence in political action is a tool, comrade, and there are wrong ways and right ways to use any tool.

[praxis1966]

It is not often I have read such abject nonsense. The IRA campaign was a failure - the objective of the IRA campaign was to drive the Brits out of the six counties - the objective of the Brits was to have a 'strategic stalemate', what they regarded as an acceptable level of violence. The Brits knew they couldn't defeat the IRA and never set about trying to do it. It took the IRA leadership twenty years to realise they couldn't defeat the Brits and another ten to figure out a way of turning off the military campaign without the IRA splitting in a bloody feud.

Clearly, you don't have a full grasp of the facts in this case. As a result, the next time you have a thought on this matter, I'd encourage you to let it go. The 1977 PIRA Green Book (aka Field Manual) clearly states the following.


By now it is clear that our task is not only to kill as many enemy personnel as possible but of equal importance to create support which will carry us not only through a war of liberation which could last another decade but which will support us past the 'Brits Out' stage to the ultimate aim of a Democratic Socialist Republic. The Strategy is:


A war of attrition against enemy personnel which is aimed at causing as many casualties and deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal.
A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interest in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term financial investment in our country.
To make the Six Counties as at present and for the past several years ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.

Basically, what that's saying is not that the IRA's intent was ever to directly drive the Brits out. They knew they had no hope of achieving such a goal against a numerically superior force. Hence, the bombing campaign to weaken the general public will of the mainland British to continue engagement. Further, I'd suggest you read Tim Pat Coogan's The Troubles, as he contends that at one time or another over the course of 25 years that certain strains within the British government, including MI-5, military intelligence, and the NIO itself thought that an outright military victory could be had in NI if the gloves had come off. The reason why it never happened was not because of inability, but because cooler heads in the British political establishment knew that such actions could have meant the South finally entering the conflict. It's really analogous to Viet Nam in that way, insofar as the U$ knew that all out invasion of the North might mean drawing China into the conflict in the directest of senses.


the split in SF at the begining of the troubles was primarily a left/right split promoted by the Southern state.Again, read Coogan's book. He argues that the Southern leadership (incidentally a far cry from your moniker 'Southern state') was for all intents clueless as to the reality on the ground and that was part of the problem. He further argues that the PIRA was a completely organic Northern movement. Besides, left/right characterizations aren't really useful in this sense, because as you can see from the Green Book I quoted above, the PIRA was socialist. Aside from practical concerns over defense of the Nationalist ghettos, the Provos other gripe with the Officials had to do with the latter's official platform of atheism. Whether or not you agree that religion is counterrevolutionary, I think everyone can agree that stance on religion doesn't necessarily make one left and the other right.

Anyhow, I agree that other Maoist urban guerrilla movements (I'm thinking specifically of the SLA and The Weathermen) weren't in any way productive. They never built any kind meaningful grassroots support amongst the general populace, which was the genesis of their downfall. Although, I think it's not unimportant to consider the pacifist tendencies of activists in 1960s America, which would indicate that there never could've been anything done to create such support.

At the end of the day, though, it's a material historical reality that anytime the socio-economic elites feel that the status quo is threatened, even if it is by peaceful constitutional means, that they'll react by violence. I'm reminded of some guy I saw on the tube the other day who was an attendee at a TEA Party protest. He was advocating, in the most literal and immediate of senses, violent overthrow of the 'socialist Obamaists.' Not that I support the U$ Dem Party, but I think it's important to take a distinction between intelligent self-defense (which we all know may become necessary) and the 'propaganda of the deed.'

[red cat]

though it is true that the ruling class lives in cities, they also have mansions and such in the country side.

on the point of the agrarian revolution, i cant see much that would have to be done in the US if at some point there is a socialist revolution. Agriculture and Meat production are already industries. the only issue is who controls them. for the most part, owners of farms are not capitalists like the capitalists who make contracts with the farmers and short-end them on all of the deals. Food Inc. had an excellent point on that. The topic was chicken farmers and the Tyson corporation. Tyson signs a contract with the farmer and the farmer is supposed to pay out of pocket or through loans to upgrade their farms to increase production. the problem is; Tyson gives them drastically less than what it costs to updrage, forcing them into debt.

I am not defending private agriculture. my point is though, the existence of industrialized agriculture and meat production meaks it all the easier. as for the private farmer, they would probably fare better in collective farming.

Also, i have not ready any material on urban warfare but it is fact that most of the US population lives in urban centers. That is where conflict will arise. so long as circumstances are right, an urban guerrilla movement can work, and if a revolutionary army comes into existence, the city will be the focus of combat. Modern warfare is almost entirely centered around urban areas. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Afghanistan will contradict this but Afghanistan is also a HIGHLY rural nation. there are very few major cities.

Actually the point on agrarian revolution was meant for third world countries.

Urban areas are the main centers of revolutionary warfare in capitalist countries anyways.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually the point on agrarian revolution was meant for third world countries.

Urban areas are the main centers of revolutionary warfare in capitalist countries anyways.


I understand that it was coming from a "third world" point of view, i just wanted to tie this into "first world" issues.

[MaoTseHelen]

The issue here is not the use of violence, so don't try and make this one of pacifists vs. revolutionaries. The argument against people like the RAF, the Weathermen, and Eldridge Cleaver's faction of the BPP is that this kind of action is counter-productive.

That was not the way the thread was framed, note the topic title.

[bcbm]

That was not the way the thread was framed, note the topic title.

yes, its referring to the urban guerrilla movements of the past, particularly during the 70's, which practiced a spectacular and voluntarist form of warfare that has nothing to do with revolution.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Clearly, you don't have a full grasp of the facts in this case. As a result, the next time you have a thought on this matter, I'd encourage you to let it go. The 1977 PIRA Green Book (aka Field Manua l) clearly states the following.
Using left rhetoric when you need to in order to get recruits is par for the course in the republican movement. Look at where their left rhetoric has ended up - in bed with the DUP implementing neo-liberal attacks on working class people.

Hanley and Miller in their book on the Officials outline that part of the reason for the 'Taca Boys' (i.e. Haughey) backing the split was because the IRA (pre-split) had been threatenting the activities of his property developer buddies. MacStiofáin claimed that 'communists' had taken over the HQ (he actually stated that Goulding was not a communist but had been taken in by them). Furthermore - to quote Ó Brádaigh - who said the Officials were acting like 'Communists all over the world'... attempting to... 'gain control of the streets' towards the aim of establishing a 'totalitarian Marxist social republic'. Subsequently the Provos claimed that the Officials had introduced 'foreign socialism' under the guise of republicanism.

Perhaps most tellling were the reasons given at by Mac Stiofáin at the meeting in Parnell Square where the establishment of the Provos was announced -
1. Officials recognition of foreign parliaments
2. Officials cooperation with radical groups (People's Democracy)
3. The National Liberation Front policy (because it was modeled on the communist Viet Cong).
4. their adoption of 'extreme socialism'
5. undemocratic internal methods
6. they 'let down the North'
7. opposition to abolishing Stormont (who sits there now?).


I'd suggest you read Tim Pat Coogan's The Troubles,
The best that could be said about Coogan is that he could not be remotely described as a historian


The reason why it never happened was not because of inability, but because cooler heads in the British political establishment knew that such actions could have meant the South finally entering the conflict.
There was never a hope in hell of the South entering the conflict - the reason that the gloves never came off is because British Imperialism never wanted them to come off, knowing full well if they did that the sectarian conflict would spill over onto the streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, London etc etc etc.


It's really analogous to Viet Nam in that way, insofar as the U$ knew that all out invasion of the North might mean drawing China into the conflict in the directest of senses.
Bears absolutely no comparison to Vietnam in the slightest.

Last but not least - 'I Ran Away' was a myth.

[Robocommie]

That was not the way the thread was framed, note the topic title.

I'll ask you to note that "urban guerillas" usually refer to groups like the RAF, Weathermen, and Symbionese Liberation Army.

On top of that, there IS the original post, which shows that it is explicitly about the Weathermen underground.

[MaoTseHelen]

All I heard was adolescent rage about an organization that hasn't been around in quite a while and only did some property damage. I don't think "counter-revolutionary" is something you thrown around liberally and saying simply because a massively capitalist society didn't support them doesn't make them any less revolutionary than anyone else.

[Rusty Shackleford]

All I heard was adolescent rage about an organization that hasn't been around in quite a while and only did some property damage. I don't think "counter-revolutionary" is something you thrown around liberally and saying simply because a massively capitalist society didn't support them doesn't make them any less revolutionary than anyone else.
that is a good point. what can make what they did counter-revolutionary though is that they created a huge reaction AGAINST revolution because they failed to act at when the circumstances were proper for something like the RAF or Weathermen to exist.

[MaoTseHelen]

that is a good point. what can make what they did counter-revolutionary though is that they created a huge reaction AGAINST revolution because they failed to act at when the circumstances were proper for something like the RAF or Weathermen to exist.
A fair point, yeah. My problem with this thread and the ones like it is that it represents the fundamental infighting that plagues the left and keeps mass action a thing of dreams in a lot of the Western World. They're either comrades or they're not, make up your mind. Don't just class sections of the movement you dislike as "Counter-revolutionary." The Weathermen, like it or not, got off their ass and did something. More than most Americans for the last 50 years.

[Andropov]

Besides, left/right characterizations aren't really useful in this sense, because as you can see from the Green Book I quoted above, the PIRA was socialist.
Does it not also say in your Green Book that it is forbidden to be a Communist?
Anyways the socialism mentioned in the Green Book isnt worth the paper it was written on since it does not specify what form of socialism it wants.
It could be interpreted as anything from Social Democracy to Left Communism.

Aside from practical concerns over defense of the Nationalist ghettos, the Provos other gripe with the Officials had to do with the latter's official platform of atheism. Whether or not you agree that religion is counterrevolutionary, I think everyone can agree that stance on religion doesn't necessarily make one left and the other right.
Im afraid your very much misguided here.
The split was down to ideological differences and damn all to do with Religion although quite a few Catholic Zealots did find the sticks atheism and secularism repugnant and so left with their rosary beeds to join the PIRA.
In fact you will find that the likes of Martin Mc Guineass was actually kicked out of the sticks and did not leave of his own accord. That was because he was a member of the AOH, the Catholic OO. A wholey reactionary and degenerate organisation. This was the same Martin Mc Guineass who attacked INLA members in Derry, he actually broke Patsy O'Haras legs and was only stopped when Johnny White put a gun to his head.
The irony of it all is for all Mc Guineass's vitriol he had for Communists and the constant attacks INLA members were the victim of that the gun store that Patsy O'Hara and Red Mickey Devine were caught robbing were actually attempting to get guns for their protection against Mc Guineass and the PIRA in Derry.
One of those untold stories in Irish history with the constant Provisional historical revisionism.

[Jolly Red Giant]

This was the same Martin Mc Guineass who attacked INLA members in Derry, he actually broke Patsy O'Haras legs and was only stopped when Johnny White put a gun to his head.
The irony of it all is for all Mc Guineass's vitriol he had for Communists and the constant attacks INLA members were the victim of that the gun store that Patsy O'Hara and Red Mickey Devine were caught robbing were actually attempting to get guns for their protection against Mc Guineass and the PIRA in Derry.

There you go sunshine - another example of republican paramilitaries doing what? - that's right - trying to kill one another - and damned good ye are at it too.


One of those untold stories in Irish history with the constant Provisional historical revisionism.
Another common facet of republican paramilitarism.

[Andropov]

There you go sunshine - another example of republican paramilitaries doing what? - that's right - trying to kill one another - and damned good ye are at it too.
Socialists when armed are as prone to feuds as Republicans.
It has damn all to do with Republicanism and all about consolidting power and eliminating the opposition.
A fairly basic concept to grasp.

Another common facet of republican paramilitarism.
Whats that now?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Socialists when armed are as prone to feuds as Republicans.
It has damn all to do with Republicanism and all about consolidting power and eliminating the opposition.
A fairly basic concept to grasp.

And one which you clearly haven't - I will try and do it as simple as possible and as short as possible - Republican paramilitaries, of all hues from green to red, set themselves up as the defenders of their community/class, are a law unto themselves and operate in what they think are the best interests of the community/class. They inevitably are faced with internal conflict because they operate without any democratic control from the community/class.

Socialists with guns (at least those who actually know what they are doing) will operate solely in conjuction with the working class (not seperate and unconnected with it) and under the democratic control of the working class.

As for feuds - common occurance in republicanism in Ireland (and all nationalist groups no matter where they are) - how many different feuds have there been now? (I can think of at least 10 off-hand) - it is the nature of the beast - amongst socialists, feuds are actually pretty rare (you can assume I place the INLA in the former catagory).

[Andropov]

And one which you clearly haven't - I will try and do it as simple as possible and as short as possible - Republican paramilitaries, of all hues from green to red, set themselves up as the defenders of their community/class, are a law unto themselves and operate in what they think are the best interests of the community/class. They inevitably are faced with internal conflict because they operate without any democratic control from the community/class.
As per usual way off.
Firstly all Republican paramilitarys are accountable to the communitys they are from and the communitys the exist in.
Without the support and acceptance of said communitys they would have never been able to operate so effectively.
If these Republican groups did not have the support of the communitys they came from they would not have been given safe houses, dumps, recruits etc so your assertion simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Also the SP could only dream of the amount of support that these Republicans have in Working Class communitys north of the border.
When it comes to feuds between different Republicans it all boils down to consolidating power and eliminating opposition.

Socialists with guns (at least those who actually know what they are doing) will operate solely in conjuction with the working class (not seperate and unconnected with it)
As per usual devoid of an accurate analysis of the context Ireland was.
How you can state that Republicans had no support in Working Class communities when they could get 100,000 people on the streets. If thats not mass working class support I dont know what is. How many thousands were the SP getting on the streets of Belfast again?

and under the democratic control of the working class.
Within the given context of Ireland at the time such a structure was not viable to clandestine groups.
As such armed Socialists such as the INLA had to operate as a Vangaurd during the armed campaign against Imperialism.

As for feuds - common occurance in republicanism in Ireland (and all nationalist groups no matter where they are) - how many different feuds have there been now? (I can think of at least 10 off-hand) - it is the nature of the beast -
Maybe that, maybe less maybe more, some ranging from a day of bloodshed to months of bloodshed, from one or 2 dead to dozens.

amongst socialists, feuds are actually pretty rare
Feuds are just a common an occurance among Socialists and Communists as they are among Republicans. Look at Colombia for example which Marxists have been waging war against the establishment for much the same timespan as Republicans in the latest faze of insurrection have had scores and scores of feuds. But then that would take some actual analysis and knowledge to know this, something you are clearly lacking.

(you can assume I place the INLA in the former catagory).
Of course because after all where else would a trendy leftist two nationist economist put it.

[Sendo]

You're correct about the Weathermen, but I don't think urban geurrilla warfare can be completely ruled out because of them. It can be successful in certain circumstances and when applied correctly and alongside attacks on other fronts (ie, political, information, cultural, economic, etc) and of course when the guerrillas have the support of the people.

Ireland is one example of a successful urban guerrilla campaign, where the IRA managed to fight the British to a state of strategic stalemate, and now their political wing Sinn Feinn has been able to gain a lot of power in the quasi-state thats devolving from the UK. The struggle is not over and you can of course criticise some of the decisions taken, but I think we would all have to admit that the military campaign has greatly improved the power of the republican movement.

Some ongoing examples would be Palestine and Iraq. Of course the differance between the urban guerilla work in Palestine, Iraq, Ireland, etc and groups like the Weathermen, RAF, JRA, etc is that the former have mass support whereas the latter were just isolated groups of radicals. Don't know much about the stuff in Greece right now, but that would seem to fall into the latter catergory aswell..

So yeah, depends if you have a mass base or not. Though I think a few well-placed 'propaganda of the deed' type actions could work to highlight certain issues and the far left's existence. But yeah

To that I would add the Algerian independence movement. Urban guerilla warfare was carried out as part of a larger anti-colonial movement.

What is important in guerilla tactics is to have popularity and to not do it as a factional split to "wake people up."

[Devrim]

As per usual way off.
Firstly all Republican paramilitarys are accountable to the communitys they are from and the communitys the exist in.
Without the support and acceptance of said communitys they would have never been able to operate so effectively.
If these Republican groups did not have the support of the communitys they came from they would not have been given safe houses, dumps, recruits etc so your assertion simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

What you say about support is true. Certainly the 'Provos' had large scale support in Northern ıreland when I lived there.

The thing about accountability obviously isn't. If you believe that these groups are accountable could you explain to us the mechanism by which this accountability is exercised? There isn't one. Yes, they are susceptible to feelings amongst the inhabitanst of the area, but they are in no way accountable.

This is one of the differences between armed groups and organisations such as the Red Guards in the Russian revolution. They were directly responsible to their Soviet or factory council. The INLA are directly responsible to themselves alone.

Devrim

[Jolly Red Giant]

As per usual way off.
Firstly all Republican paramilitarys are accountable to the communitys they are from and the communitys the exist in.
See Devrim's post above


When it comes to feuds between different Republicans it all boils down to consolidating power and eliminating opposition.
Inherent in the nature of paramilitarism - of course the INLA have never attempted to consolidate power and are always the ones being 'eliminated'

As per usual devoid of an accurate analysis of the context Ireland was.
How you can state that Republicans had no support in Working Class communities when they could get 100,000 people on the streets. If thats not mass working class support I dont know what is. How many thousands were the SP getting on the streets of Belfast again?


Within the given context of Ireland at the time such a structure was not viable to clandestine groups.
Bullsh*t - operating community defence groups under democratic community control is always viable and necessary. The fact that the paramilitaries wanted to be able to operate outside of community control does not negate the necessity for it.


As such armed Socialists such as the INLA had to operate as a Vangaurd during the armed campaign against Imperialism.
A justification for paramilitaries to engage in their activities -


Maybe that, maybe less maybe more, some ranging from a day of bloodshed to months of bloodshed, from one or 2 dead to dozens.
As I said - the nature of the beast - operate outside democratic community control (your 'vanguard') and inevitably you will start shooting one another.


Feuds are just a common an occurance among Socialists and Communists as they are among Republicans. Look at Colombia for example which Marxists have been waging war against the establishment for much the same timespan as Republicans in the latest faze of insurrection have had scores and scores of feuds. But then that would take some actual analysis and knowledge to know this, something you are clearly lacking.
The FARC are practically a carbon copy of republican paramilitaries - an armed body operating outside any democratic control. Hardly surprising they are riddle with the same contradictions.


Of course because after all where else would a trendy leftist two nationist economist put it.
Coming from a rabid sectarian populist who has no understanding of Marxism or the need for working class action (don't worry stay at home, hide our guns and we'll defend you).

[Andropov]

The thing about accountability obviously isn't. If you believe that these groups are accountable could you explain to us the mechanism by which this accountability is exercised? There isn't one. Yes, they are susceptible to feelings amongst the inhabitanst of the area, but they are in no way accountable.
Dev your half right.
Every armed group is accountable to a degree to the community they hail from.
The reason I say this is that if the said community removed its support then the armed group would not be capable of operating because safe houses, dumps, recruits etc would not be provided by the community.
And if indeed the armed group angered the community to such an extent then there have been occasions when the said armed group has been banished in the community.
A perfect example of this was when the OIRA killed Ranger Best in Derry.
After that incident the Derry OIRA was expelled and absolutely crippled in Derry and never recovered there.

[Jolly Red Giant]

What is important in guerilla tactics is to have popularity and to not do it as a factional split to "wake people up."
'popularity' - are you serious :confused:

[Andropov]

Inherent in the nature of paramilitarism - of course the INLA have never attempted to consolidate power and are always the ones being 'eliminated'
You have yet again failed to detail why it inherent in the nature of Republicanism, I eagerly await your answer.

Bullsh*t - operating community defence groups under democratic community control is always viable and necessary.
Ohh really? Where was the community defence groups you and the SP created that defended the short stand, that defended ardoyne etc?
Ya I thought not, all talk but no action is what is to be expected of your kind.

The fact that the paramilitaries wanted to be able to operate outside of community control does not negate the necessity for it.
As stated above they were accountable to the community to a degree.

A justification for paramilitaries to engage in their activities
No, a conclusion achieved through linear marxist thought.

As I said - the nature of the beast - operate outside democratic community control (your 'vanguard') and inevitably you will start shooting one another.
Yes you have said it many times but have consistantly failed to detail why its in the nature of the beast.
As I pointed out socialists are just as prone to feuds as Republicans so your point really is redundant unless you can detail why.

The FARC are practically a carbon copy of republican paramilitaries - an armed body operating outside any democratic control. Hardly surprising they are riddle with the same contradictions.
The FARC are Marxists and have mass public support in peasant regions of Colombia.
They are of course fighting a Vangaurd war against imperialism and capitalism.
But whether that is the case or not is irrelevant, what I have given is yet another example of how socialists are as prone to feuds as Republicans so clearly it is not simply an issue for Republicans to being prone to feuds.

Coming from a rabid sectarian populist who has no understanding of Marxism or the need for working class action
In what way am I a sectarian populist?
I suggest you actually read some of what Marx and Engels wrote on Ireland because they firmly reject your two nationist economist politics and Loyalist Sympathising degenerates such as yourself were at the bottom of their shit heap.
Theres a reason why Engels hid a fenian on the run in his attic.

(don't worry stay at home, hide our guns and we'll defend you).
Yet again the attempt at humour failing as miserably as your arguement.
Now on an issue of common courtesy when debating I would appreciate it if you had the integrity to answer all of my posts and stop cherry picking the uncomfortable truths out of them, as you can see throughout this thread I have constantly answered all of your points how ever you have not been so forthcoming with that common courtesy.
Now JRG could you please give me the names of these "lunatics" who you know and live beside?
You have constantly avoided answering the question.

[Devrim]

Dev your half right.
Every armed group is accountable to a degree to the community they hail from.
The reason I say this is that if the said community removed its support then the armed group would not be capable of operating because safe houses, dumps, recruits etc would not be provided by the community.
And if indeed the armed group angered the community to such an extent then there have been occasions when the said armed group has been banished in the community.
A perfect example of this was when the OIRA killed Ranger Best in Derry.
After that incident the Derry OIRA was expelled and absolutely crippled in Derry and never recovered there.

This isn't accountability though. This is support/tolerance. You could make a very similar argument saying that the British state is accountable in Northern Ireland because people let in operate. I wouldn't.

Surely accountability must have some mechanisms behind it, and not be support from a minority and tolerance from a majority.

Devrim

[Andropov]

This isn't accountability though. This is support/tolerance. You could make a very similar argument saying that the British state is accountable in Northern Ireland because people let in operate. I wouldn't.
But do those people who let the British state operate par-take in providing safe houses, storeing weaponary, breaking slabs for riots, stealing petrol for petrol bombs, stealing bottles from the local creamerys for the petrol bombs etc etc etc.
The level of community involvement in those organisations in Ireland in comparison to the level of community involvement in the running of the British Army.


Surely accountability must have some mechanisms behind it, and not be support from a minority and tolerance from a majority
True Dev that there were no formal structures for accountability but the amount of community involvement and direct participation in these organisations meant that if indeed they were disliked or not tolerated or angered the community in some way then it simply wouldnt function.

[dubaba]

I didnt realize that the SDS wanted a communist america :s

[robbo203]

btw im not pacifist, violence is to revolution what water is to fish



Sorry, I disagree. Revolution simply means a fundamental change in economic basis of society. How you achieve it is another matter.

My view is that the more you feel the need to resort to violence the less likely is the revolutiuon to succeed. A socialist revolution necessarily entails a substantial majority understanding and wanting socialism. It cannot be imposed from above. The growth of socialist consciouness necessarily impacts upon the entire cultural and political climate of capitalism modifying it to the advantage of the the movement itself and gradually undermining the authority of the state act in ways that would repress the movement. In other words, the necessity to employ violence declines as the movement grows because the opposition to the movement in the form of the capitalist state will itself will be more and more unable to use violence itself or undemocratic methods against this movement. The twilight years of the capitalist state will thus see it take the form of an ultra-democratic liberal bourgeois state attempting feebly to buy the workers off with welfare reforms but increasingly impotent in all that it does.

The scenario painted by some on the left of a capitalist state lurching towards fascism and dictatorship in response to the the growth of the socialist movement is hopelessly unrealistic, not to say melodramatic, in my view. Quite the opposite is likely to happen and that in itself dstroys the need to use violence.

Violence is the tool of the desparate in no condition yet, and without the numerical support, to implement a sucessful socialist revolution.

[fionntan]

Andropov you are a walking contradiction on the majority of what you type. Number one Joe McCann was not killed in the battle of St Matthews but a few years later unarmed and shoot in the back. And your warped sense of understanding of the Republican socialist movement in the north and the INLA in particular leads me to believe you live in the south and have either just joined the RSYM or better still aren't even a member of the RSM. And your opinions on 32CSM are even more disturbing considering the fact that the two groups work closely on community issues to call them anti communist is absolutely wrong and any real member of the RSM will tell you that. The OIRA was stood down in Derry after the Ranger???? NO.. Mcguinnes threw out of the sticks because he was in the AOH LOL lol.

[Andropov]

Andropov you are a walking contradiction on the majority of what you type. Number one Joe McCann was not killed in the battle of St Matthews but a few years later unarmed and shoot in the back.
Indeed your right.
But on his death he was given martyrdom status for his actions in the Markets in 1971, that iconic pose with the starry plough.

And your warped sense of understanding of the Republican socialist movement in the north and the INLA in particular leads me to believe you live in the south and have either just joined the RSYM or better still aren't even a member of the RSM.
Haha nice one, a 32 member telling me what RSM policy is.
Perhaps you could disect where I diverge from RSM policy post by post instead of making sweeping statements like that.
And if you dont believe im in the RSM thats your perogative, perhaps you should ask Irish Worker or PRC-UTE or Hoggy on here and ask them?

And your opinions on 32CSM are even more disturbing considering the fact that the two groups work closely on community issues to call them anti communist is absolutely wrong and any real member of the RSM will tell you that.
Firstly we work closely with the 32s on joint issues just as we do with other Socialists on joint issues.
Secondly I never said the 32's were anti-communist, I said...

the 32CSM has some notorious anti-communists.
Thirdly any "Real Member of the RSM" could tell you where one of your leading members told one of our colour partys to take the red flag from the front of one of our joint marchs and lead with the tri-colour.
She was told where to go.

The OIRA was stood down in Derry after the Ranger????
No, they lost all support in Derry after Ranger Best because of the public backlash.
Obviously they were crippled before that because when the split came in 1974 we took the majority of their Derry membership but Ranger Best was catastrophic for them.

Mcguinnes threw out of the sticks because he was in the AOH LOL lol.
Yes.

[fionntan]

First thing i was at the march it was at Bodenstown it was a joint commemoration. And yes the national flag was asked to lead the partie at the request from the people gathered there the red flag carrier was asked to fall in behind it.

[Andropov]

First thing i was at the march it was at Bodenstown it was a joint commemoration. And yes the national flag was asked to lead the partie at the request from the people gathered there the red flag carrier was asked to fall in behind it.
Quite symbolic to the whole failed RFU debacle.

[fionntan]

It IRFU for christ sake at least spend a bit of time to research what people tell you. And that was 3 years before the IRFU was launched..

[Andropov]

It IRFU for christ sake at least spend a bit of time to research what people tell you. And that was 3 years before the IRFU was launched..
So that is what you attack me on?
Instead of calling it the Irish Republican Forum for Unity I call it the Republcan Forum for Unity?
Says it all really.
I said it was symbolic for the differences that the IRSP had with the 32's as in the 32's failure to engage with meaningfull socialist politics and consistantly subjugating it to the National Question.
Now when you are ready will you please tell me how I diverge from RSM politics, this should be enlightening?